Subject: Protocol: Message ID

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:20:56 -0700

>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]> 12/10/03 4:36:13 AM
>>>
>> 4.1.1.1. Message ID 
>
>> For operations that do 
>> not return responses (unbind, abandon, and abandoned operations),
the 
>> client SHOULD assume the operation is in progress until a subsequent

>> bind request completes. 
>
>Maybe 'bind request or TLS closure', since outstanding operations do
not
>get responses after TLS closure. Or could reusing these IDs be
>troublesome for servers if the operations continue running after the
>closure, just without sending responses?
 
I'm inclined to just drop the whole statement. Certainly there are and
will be other ways of determining that those operations are no longer in
progress. I originally added it as a way of suggesting one possible way
of doing this.

Jim

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:42:49 +0100

Sorry about last empty message message.

Jim Sermersheim writes:
>>> not return responses (unbind, abandon, and abandoned operations), the 
>> (...)
> I'm inclined to just drop the whole statement.  Certainly there are
> and will be other ways of determining that those operations are no
> longer in progress. I originally added it as a way of suggesting one
> possible way of doing this.

I like that statement.  It's a useful warning, and it tells readers who
already wonder what the heck to do about such message IDs that there
isn't anything to do.

How about:

   A client MUST NOT send a request with the same message ID as an 
   earlier request on the same LDAP association unless it can be 
   determined that the server is no longer servicing the earlier 
   request

"(e.g. after the final response or a response to a subsequent bind is
received)"

   . Otherwise the behavior is undefined.

"Note that abandon and successfully abandoned operations do not have
responses."

(No need to mention unbind, it's stated elsewhere that nothing is to be
sent after an unbind.)

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:47:26 +0100

> "Note that abandon and successfully abandoned operations do not have

Um.  "For this purpose, note that...".

-- 
Hallvard