Subject: Re: controls

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:54:31 -0600

>>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]> 10/01/02 03:43PM >>>
>At 01:52 PM 2002-10-01, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>The wording in my latest (yet-to-be-submitted) draft says this:
>>
>>"Controls should not be combined unless the semantics of the
>>combination has been specified. The semantics of control
combinations,
>>if specified, are generally found in the control definition most
>>recently published. In the absence of such a definition, the behavior
of
>>the operation is undefined.  
>
>s/definition/specification/

Note that the term "control definition" is consistent with the
historical text of the document. I don't mind changing this occurance to
"control specification", but I'd want to also change other occurances as
to not confuse the reader.

>>Additionally, the order of a combination of controls in the SEQUENCE
is
>>ignored unless the control definition explicitly states that
ordering
>>affects the operation."
>>
>>In other words, we can't say that it matters unless we can say how
it
>>matters. Therefore, we acknowledge that it may matter, but leave it
up
>>to the control definitions to specify if and how it matters.
>
>I think we need to say how servers are to behave where they
>are given a combination of recognized and appropriate controls
>types for an operation but they do not support the particular
>combination.  I suggest that if the server is unwilling or unable
>to perform the operation as extended by the combination, it
>should return unwillingToPerform.

I agree.

>Kurt