Subject: IntermediateResponse and extensions

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:42:34 +0100

It occurs to me that other types of extensions than extended operations
and controls, like new types of LDAPMessage requests, could also solicit
intermediateResponses.

Instead of being intended to be solicited by controls and extended
operations, the text could say that it is intended to be solicited by
extensions, and that two ways of doing that are currently defined: With
controls and extended operations.  Also 'the extended operation' or 'the
control' which caused the intermediateResponse would be changed to 'the
extension'.

One problem:  We must say which kinds of extensions must require the
IntermediateResponse to include a responseName, but I don't know how.
Maybe it's best to let the author of the extension judge that.  Mention
that all previously RFC-defined kinds of extensions that can solicit
intermediateResponses should be considered when deciding that?
Or maybe all this makes it more trouble than it is worth to generalize
IntermediateResponse to all extensions.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:19:22 -0800

>IntermediateResponse to all extensions.

I think it unwise to generalize IntermediateResponses to
all extensions.  Someone might actually try to solicit
an IntermediateResponse with attribute option.  If some
document tries to solicit IntermediateResponses with a
new message type, we can discuss that as part of the
review of that document (note that new message types
require standard action to register). 

I think it fine that we only describe solicitation for
the two cases considered by [LDAPIMR].

Kurt