[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] Trace control (was: comment control, dummy request, no-response request)
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 11:31 AM 2/24/2005, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>> I was thinking in just the opposite way: Make the wording reasonably
>> general and not a "just for me" control, as long as it's basically a
>> no-op:-)
>
> I prefer to limit its use to tracing. I rather it not be used
> in support of other applications (as that demises its usefulness
> in tracing). That is, I rather servers not attach semantics
> to the information (as they likely would if it the data was
> structured).
OK. Makes sense.
> I note that we likely want to allow multiple instances of the
> control to be attached to a message.
"The order of multiple trace controls in a request SHOULD be preserved."
>> While I'd like to say somehow that the trace info is to have no "real"
>> effect (your "not otherwise...used"), I'm a bit leery of that. I was
>> thinking more of something like "is not intended to be otherwise
>> interpreted or used".
>
> Something like:
> The trace information has no semantical value in the
> protocol. That is, this control does not change the
> meaning of the message it is attached to.
Nice.
s/semantical/semantic/, I think.
--
Hallvard
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext