|
Ok, then something to the effect of your last statement will be added?
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 4/20/04 10:37:22 AM >>> At 08:35 AM 4/20/2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote: >If only tagging options were allowed, then I wouldn't be going on and on about it. To ensure interoperability between implementations which support different options, we've adopted two basic rules: Servers are to treat attribute descriptions with unrecognized options as unrecognized. Clients may treat attribute descriptions with unrecognized options either as unrecognized or subtypes of the attribute type in the description. This means that server can return subtypes indicated by tagging options just as they would for other subtypes (e.g., without requiring explicit naming of the subtype in the solicitation). However, servers cannot return options (like a range option) which have semantics incompatible/non-interoperable with either of the allowed client treatments. To do so would not be truly optional. Kurt |