RE: Abandon Modify

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 06:54 PM 2002-07-08, Ramsay, Ron wrote:
>Thanks, Kurt.
>
>If LDAP doesn't have an 'abandoned' result code, then surely it needs one
>because, correct me if I'm worong, update operations are confirmed.  Or are
>you saying they are sometimes confirmed.

Abandoned operations (whether by Abandon, Bind, or Unbind) are
not confirmed.

>In X.500, of course, they are always confirmed.

The LDAP Cancel operation [draft-zeilenga-ldap-cancel-xx.txt] provides
X.500 Abandon semantics.

>Always, here, meaning
>ALWAYS. This is enforced by ROSE.
>
>I can't see why the abandon ID cannot be reused.

Depends on how the server is implemented.  While it
is likely most servers are implemented such
that reuse of the abandon ID as you describe is not
a problem, the existing specification allows for
implementations which would not allow reuse as you
describe.  I see no reason to relax the existing
restriction, but for a need to broaden the restriction
to cover other cases where the IDs cannot be reused.

Anyways, the abandon request ID (and even the abandoned
operation ID) reuse issue is minor issue.  The more
important issue is to clarify that the client is
not provided a clear indication that the requested
abandonment was honored or not.

Kurt