Re: Another problem with abandon

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>]

So, I feel compelled to add language that highlights this fact.

!!!!!!
This has the effect of limiting LDAP to only be transmitted over transfer protocols that guarantee order. Is this something everyone can live with forever?
!!!!!!

I will consider your silence as a yes.

Jim

>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com> 11/06/02 09:09PM >>>
Your suggestion Kurt, is what the current draft states. I guess if servers want to avoid the problem, they need to keep track of the order in which requests are received.

Jim

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 11/06/02 05:46PM >>>
At 11:54 AM 2002-11-06, John McMeeking wrote:
>First,  I better say that I agree that it would simplify things if abandon
>had a response.  But I don't think we're broke without a response, and some
>could argue we're broke if it is added.

We should avoid that argument. 

I, personally, think we just need a simple clarification here.
In particular, I think we just need to say that the client should
not reuse any message id unless it is safe to do so, otherwise
behavior is undefined.  We can define safe as "obtained a final
response for the operation or completed a subsequently issued
bind operation."  This implies that clients should avoid reuse of
abandon and abandoned message ids, which most do by use of a
message id counter.  That's plenty good enough for most clients.
Those few where it isn't can use other mechanisms (such as never
reusing an abandon/abandoned message id... and doing a rebind if
one runs out of message ids.

>> Also, we need to allow for LDAP to be transferred over other transports
>(like UDP)
>> which don't guarantie delivery.
>
>Talking UDP,

I don't need to consider UDP.

Kurt