[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: WG Consensus: Abandon Operation
At 01:57 AM 2002-08-01, Ramsay, Ron wrote:
>Yes, why can't you add to your bulleted list that
I'm not sure whether this is a process point or a technical
point. Process-wise, I think the message from the chairs
is pretty clear. There are changes to be made which are
supported by WG consensus. These are listed and are to be
made by the Editor. There are additional suggestions which we
are not yet prepared to conclude are supported or not by
consensus. Further discussion is needed. I think it best
to separate whatever technical comments I might, so
I won't include them here.
I'd be more likely to respond to a new thread which didn't
confuse the changes to be made with the changes still
under discussion.
>* update operations are not expected to be targets for the abandon operation
>- if your server wishes to honour them, you should be aware that there is no
>response defined in LDAP for an abandoned operation so the state of the DIT
>will be indeterminate.
>
>Ron.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
>Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2002 17:44
>To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
>Subject: WG Consensus: Abandon Operation
>
>
>The message summarizes the WG discussions of Abandon
>operations.
>
>There is no evidence that any implementation returns or
>expects the return of a response for an abandoned operation.
>The fact that no specific result code indicating abandonment
>was defined in the LDAP technical specification is a clear
>indication that no response was to be returned in the case
>of abandonment.
>
>While some are concerned that design of Abandon operation is
>flawed (as it doesn't provide a clear indication of
>abandonment), redesign of the Abandon operation is beyond
>our scope of work. This work has been undertaken on an
>individual basis (see draft-zeilenga-ldap-cancel).
>
>The chairs believe there is consensus that the
>Abandon operation and message ID reuse (in regards to the
>Abandon operation) sections should be clarified to clearly
>indicate:
> * Servers are not required to honor the Abandon
> request;
> * The Abandon operation has no response;
> * The abandoned operation has no response; and
> * Message ids of the Abandon operation and the
> abandoned operation cannot be reused unless
> a subsequent bind operation completes.
>
>The Editor is directed to produce a revision containing
>clarifications consistent with this consensus. The WG
>should review the clarifications once offered to ensure
>that they do reflect this consensus.
>
>The chairs draw no conclusion as to the applicability of
>the Abandon operation to abandon update operations. The
>chairs suggest that those who believe that some statement
>should be added to the technical specification regarding
>use of the Abandon operation to abandon update operations
>should offer a specific proposal for WG review.
>
>-- Kurt & Bob