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

consensus/action RE: Protocol: control specifications.

I believe recent discussions reenforce and support my
previously stated belief of WG consensus regarding the
control criticality issues in [Protocol].  I find the WG
consensus supports, in general, the control criticality text
as presently worded in the latest protocol revision.  In
particular, I find that the WG consensus does not support
adopting any specific text that allows (MUST/SHOULD/MAY)
servers to verify that the client provided an appropriate
criticality value.  I also find the WG consensus does not
support removing or diminishing the note regarding
control-specific alteration of criticality semantics.

Lastly, there was an additional related discussion inclusion
of language explicitly stating one or more of the possible
criticality options future control specifications have in
guidance they offer to the control sender.  I find that the
inclusion of such language is not supported by WG consensus.
I note that the document did include such language at one
time, and that text was purposely removed as a result of
previous WG discussions.  I also find that inclusion of such
language would likely lead to a widening of scope of the
document to offer more than a simple profile (outline) for
future extension specifications.

While I do suspect that some minor editorial issues may
remain in this section which the Editor should feel free to
correct, I direct the Editor to avoid making any change of
technical substance in this area (control criticality)
without prior chair consultation.

I encourage individual effort in producing a document
(or documents) detailing considerations for extension
authors (and reviewers).

-- Kurt, LDAPbis co-chair