Re: supportedControl and recognized controls

[Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>]

> 1. It may be good to include the "SHOULD" and "all" in the next revision
> of RFC2251/2252 it that is OK for everybody.

In a standards track RFC everything is mandatory unless labeled optional or 
deployer's choice with a SHOULD or MAY.  I haven't seen cases where there is
a good reason to NOT include a control in supportedControls.

> 2. Because of backend restrictions, clients have to handle the 
> unsupportedCriticalExtension any way. Then, why have supportedControls it 
> in the root DSE? Are the root DSE supportedControls a way to tell clients 
> "don't even think about it :=)" ?

There is a similar case in SMTP, where a server advertises its capabilities.
It is very useful for debugging a mixed deployment of servers, where the 
management tool can easily compare the server's capabilities against what 
the clients expect.  Furthermore if the control is marked non critical the 
client would not be able to tell if the server supported it or not without
the supportedControls information.

Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
Innosoft International, Inc.