Re: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol - controls

Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>  >>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]> 4/1/05 11:06:03 AM >>>
>  >At 08:25 AM 4/1/2005, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>  >>I also think we are not actually solving the real original issues of:
>  >>
>  >>a) how does a server fronting other servers/services advertise 
> support for extensions

>  >>b) how does that server treat non-critical controls as they are 
> applied over the distributed servers/services
>  >
>  >The same as it would in single server system... in
>  >a manner consistent with the client's expectations.
>  >
>  >Or more to the point, the client's expectations are the
>  >same regardless of whether the service is distributed or
>  >not. Why do you think the server is free to ignore
>  >some or all of those expectations simply because it
>  >fronting a distributed service?
> 
> I don't. What I'm saying is there was a message from Howard which seemed 
> to me to raise these two issues (a and b). Relaxing what "appropriate" 
> means doesn't address either of these issues. Maybe I'm wrong and the 
> only issue raised was that we want "appropriate for the operation" to 
> mean more than specified as appropriate for the operation by the control 
> spec. No response is needed though, I'm too tired of this issue to argue 
> anymore, no one else is concerned. I'll make the change.

Yes, I raised at least (a) but only to provide background for the 
current problem. I think it might be nice if we had a mechanism for 
advertising support that worked for this case, but I'm not looking to 
design it today, here in LDAPbis. Sorry if that muddied the water too much.

-- 
   -- Howard Chu
   Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
   http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
   Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support