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

From: "Ramsay, Ron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:39:08 +1000

I don't think you can have an association after an unbind. Not if you are going to draw on X.500 for support.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roger Harrison
Sent: Monday, 25 October 2004 13:47
To: Jim Sermersheim; [email-masked]
Cc: Ramsay, Ron; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: "LDAP exchange" (was: Misuse of the term "association" in[Protocol])

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:
>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: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:38:37 -0600

I don't see Roger mentioning unbind. Remember that unbind is a misnomer
and it really means 'disconnect'. Thus if an association has the same
lifetime as a connection (as stated by Roger), then you are agreeing
with Roger's statement.

>>> "Ramsay, Ron" <[email-masked]> 10/24/04 11:39:08 PM >>>
I don't think you can have an association after an unbind. Not if you
are going to draw on X.500 for support.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roger Harrison
Sent: Monday, 25 October 2004 13:47
To: Jim Sermersheim; [email-masked]
Cc: Ramsay, Ron; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: "LDAP exchange" (was: Misuse of the term "association"
in[Protocol])

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
>>>
>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