Subject: RE: "LDAP exchange" (was: Misuse of the term "association" in [Protocol])

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:59:14 -0600

I agree with this, and I'll probably suggest some minor changes to some
of Kurt's suggestions.

Jim

>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]> 10/5/04 10:08:00 AM
>>>
Jim Sermersheim writes:
> Then there is (or at least there was) the thought that we need to
> provide a term which describes the association of the authN and
authZ
> state as it relates to Layer 4. Kurt's suggestion is that we don't
need
> to define (nor name) this. But that we instead update the doc in the
> places he described. I agree with most of the changes, but the change
to
> Section 6 makes me feel like the term was useful, and we're
rewording
> just so we can drop the use of the term.

My vote is to drop "association".  It doesn't seem very useful to
define
a term which is only needed once, and apparently this is the only
place
in [Protocol] which does need it.  I do like the current wording
better
than Kurt's, but I also dislike to require readers to remember more
definitions than necessary.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:04:00 -0600

The other issue is whether or not we rename the term 'LDAP exchange'. To
me it's understandable. We could entertain words like 'session', but
LDAP exchange seems less overloaded. I agree with other views that
'association' is best left to be difined by [authmeth] for it's
purposes.

Jim

authZ
need
to
rewording

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Roger Harrison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:46:53 -0600

After reviewing the current usage of the term association in protocol-27
and then reading and considering the various opinions expressed on the
proper usage of the term, I have decided that every connection has an
association that has the same lifetime as the connection. The
association may pass through a number of states during that lifetime,
and the bind operation is the way that a client can change that state. I
have attempted to reflect this usage throughout authmeth-13, although I
suspect that my effort may need a bit more work before it's as clear as
it can and should be in this regard. 
 
Roger

>>>Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]> 10/05/04 10:08 am >>>
Jim Sermersheim writes:
>provide a term which describes the association of the authN and authZ
>state as it relates to Layer 4. Kurt's suggestion is that we don't need
to
>Section 6 makes me feel like the term was useful, and we're rewording

My vote is to drop association.  It doesn't seem very useful to define
a term which is only needed once, and apparently this is the only place
in [Protocol] which does need it.  I do like the current wording better
than Kurt's, but I also dislike to require readers to remember more
definitions than necessary.

--
Hallvard