[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: Protocol: control specifications.

At 05:25 PM 3/9/2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>Finally, the old text did not allow the control spec to mandate a
>>specific criticality only in some circumstances. I like that, but I
>>think that too differs from X.500.
>My feeling in general is to push as much of this as possible to the
>guidelines for control specifications document. 

I don't think it is necessary, or even necessarily wise, to
be more precise on the range of guidance/direction a control
specification can give to the sender.  It can be argued that
2251's listing just three options here caused some of the
confusion.  Anyway, more to the point is that the scope of
this portion of the document is to provide a profile (an
outline) of the necessary components of a future control
extension specification.  Providing more detailed discussions
of what a control specification may or may not say is seems
beyond the scope of our work here.  That is, I believe such
discussion more appropriately belongs in a separate "guidelines
for LDAP extensions" document or the like.  For instance,
this could be addressed better in
draft-zeilenga-ldap-ext-xx.txt (or similar document) as
it is far easier to elaborate on not only the available
options, but tradeoffs between these options can be
discussed in appropriate detail.