[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: LDAP Extension Style Guide, re interaction between controls
> "Controls SHOULD NOT be combined unless the semantics of the
> combination has been defined. A server MAY ignore non-critical
> controls (even those it recognizes) to establish semantics of the
> operation
Note that the Internet2 guys, IETF PKIX group and Middleware
people have been discussing this issue, as X.500 is ambiguous in
this case. A defect report has now been issued on X.500, and the
proposed solution is contrary to the above, i.e. it states that a
server that understands an extension (control in the case of LDAP)
MUST obey it even if it is marked non critical. I would like LDAP to
either take the same stance for compatibility purposes, or to
persuade the X.500 , PKIX and other groups that the proposed
solution is wrong and that the server should be free to choose what
to do. Either way, I think that compatibility should be the target.
David
***************************************************
David Chadwick
IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel +44 161 295 5351 Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile +44 790 167 0359
Email D.W.Chadwick@salford.ac.uk
Home Page http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Understanding X.500 http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
Entrust key validation string MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J
***************************************************