Re: Protocol: Ignore SEQUENCE elements...

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>]

So to summarize, I don't think we want to change the statement in
Section 4 at all. Well, I do think we should put an "unless otherwise
specified" in there to allow specific instructions to override
instruction to ignore.
 
However, I think we may want to add explicit language on how unknown
CHOICEs in SearchRequest.Filter and
SearchRequest.Filter.SubstringFilter.substrings are to be handled.
 
Jim

>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com> 9/17/03 8:49:10 AM >>>
John

>I do not like the notion of a blanket statement to ignore unknown
values in
>an ENUMERATION or CHOICE type. I don't think that it makes any sense
for
>any of the existing CHOICE or ENUMERATED types, 

I think this is the current consensus of the group

>with the possible exception
>of resultCode.

I wouldn't say ignore, I would say treat as unknown error.

Some of the CHOICE types have explicit instructions, and others
probably need explicit instructions.

<snip>

>Yes, X.680 does allow for extensible types, but you must explicitly
define
>them as extensible (using "...") 

Or using "EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED"

>and presumably the type "designer" has
>considered the ramifications of making a given type extensible.

Right, that's what I'm hoping to do in this thread.