Re: matched values 05

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 02:49 PM 12/21/00 -0700, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 12/20/00 1:16:32 PM >>>
>>It's not impossible.  It's just difficult.  But the difficulty
>>is not due to whether or not the controls are orderred or not,
>>the difficulty comes from combining new controls with existing
>>controls where the existing control TS could not possible
>>invision the impact of all new controls.
>
>The latter is what I considered impossible. Not knowing about future controls, one can never specify how a given control acts in conjunction with all other related controls.

Yes.  This is true whether or not semantics can be based upon
the ordering of controls in a sequence.

>This may be the least evil thing to do, but it still offers nothing about the implicit, explicit, or simply default process-order of controls.

Which, IMO, is a good thing.  The specification of control semantics,
including how controls may be combined and, if so, whether ordering
of controls within the sequence matters, is left to documents describing
the controls.

>It may be useful to say that controls are to be processed in the order that they appear in the sequence unless otherwise specified. OTOH, saying that much might cause immediate non-conformance of existing clients and servers.

I believe it best for RFC 2251 to provide only a syntax for
extensions but to defer specification of semantics to documents
detailing the extensions.