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

From: "Ramsay, Ron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:07:31 +1000

Hi Hallvard,

I had a look in *protocol*26.txt for a definition of "LDAP exchange" and got nothing! Here are some quotes:

"The term "connection" refers to the underlying transport service used 
   to carry the protocol exchange."

- This is the first use of "exchange" (apart from the TOC) and is clearly not a definition.

"The term "LDAP exchange" refers to application layer where LDAP PDUs 
   are exchanged between protocol peers."

- I wouldn't call this a definition either. a) How can an "exchange" be a layer? b) It "refers" to an application layer, but what is it?

"The term "SASL layer" refers to a layer inserted between the 
   connection and the LDAP exchange that utilizes Simple Authentication 
   and Security Layer ([SASL]) to protect the exchange of LDAP PDUs."

- This use of exchange is more normal - peers simply exchanging PDUs, no semantics implied.

So much for "exchange".

Now, tell me, what is your objection to "association". Or, to be more specific, what sentence or paragraph in protocol-26 do you think requires a term like (ugh) "exchange"?

Ron

PS Some comments inline

-----Original Message-----
From: Hallvard B Furuseth [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, 4 October 2004 22:57
To: Ramsay, Ron
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: "LDAP exchange" (was: Misuse of the term "association" in
[Protocol])

Ramsay, Ron writes:
> I note that you are not listening to me, and I guess that it OK. But
> this problem will not go away until you drop this strange "LDAP
> exchange" thing. It DOES NOT, at least in English, mean the ongoing
> exchange of protocol data.

Nor is it defined that way in [Protocol].  Did you see my message
  http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200410/msg00002.html
?

<RR> Yes. I don't think the word "exchange" can be used in this context. "Stream" is certainly better.

> The only chance for sanity here is to keep "association" and drop
> "exchange".

That would be wrong, since "association" is defined as something
different.  We could rename the term "LDAP exchange" to something else
(which would get the current definition of "LDAP exchange") after making
Kurt's changes.  If you wish to suggest a better term, read this thread
first:

  http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200404/msg00023.html

<RR> This seems to be talking about "connections"?

Personally I prefer several other terms over "LDAP exchange", but I
don't feel strongly about it.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:43:14 +0200

Ramsay, Ron writes:
> (...)
> - I wouldn't call this a definition either. a) How can an "exchange" be
>   a layer? b) It "refers" to an application layer, but what is it?

(a) Yes, you have made clear that you find this term misleading, but
    that's the meaning [Protocol] states that it uses this term for, so
    that's what it means in [Protocol].

(b) Section 2 contains a list of `The term "foo" refers to bar.'
    It had never occurred to me _not_ to consider that a list of
    definitions of those terms, but if you find it unclear, you can
    always suggest another wording for that too.

> Now, tell me, what is your objection to "association".

That [Authmeth] already uses that term with another meaning.  See
section 2 (and my soon-to-be-posted and others' replies in this thread).

> Or, to be more
> specific, what sentence or paragraph in protocol-26 do you think
> requires a term like (ugh) "exchange"?

It doesn't require a term like "exchange".  It requires some term which
has the meaning which [Protocol] gives the term "LDAP exchange".

>> (...) If you wish to suggest a better term, read this thread
> first:
> 

Yes, and the thread starting there also talks about rejecting "stream",
"LDAP layer" etc for the meaning which we now have "LDAP exchange" (as
far as I can see).

-- 
Hallvard