Re: Active Directory question

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 09:57 AM 4/20/2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>Ok, then something to the effect of your last statement will be added?

If properly qualified (e.g., without solicitation), I
think I could live with something to that effect.  Of course,
devil is in the details (e.g., the particular wording).

>>>> "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