Re: Another problem with abandon

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

>>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 6/20/03 8:42:22 AM >>>
>At 10:16 PM 6/19/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>There is no response defined in the Abandon operation. Upon reciept
of
>>an AbandonRequest, the server MAY abandon the operation identified
by
>>the MessageID. Operation responses are not sent for successfully
>>abandoned operations, thus a client SHOULD NOT use the Abandon
operation
>>when it needs an indication of whether the operation was abandoned.
For
>>example, if a client performs an update operation (Add, Modify, or
>>ModifyDN), and it needs to know whether the directory has changed due
to
>>the operation, it should not use the Abandon operation to cancel the
>>update operation. Clients can ensure that an operation has been
>>successfully abandoned by performing a subsequent bind operation,
and
>>this method only works when the underlying transport guaranties
ordering
>>of messages. 
>
>I suggest dropping the last sentence as it implies the client can
>get an indication of success of the abandon operation by issuing
>a subsequent bind operation.

Well, it can. I can crop it anyway as no one seems to find it useful.

>Also, change the "MAY" to a "may".  MAY implies that a server
>can elect to implement the abandon operation while may
>implies the server which implements the abandon operation can
>choose when to honor the request.

yes

>Likely, the "SHOULD NOT use" does not appear to be an implementation
>imperative and likely should be a "should not".
>
>And, you left "Delete" out of list of update operations.

yes and yes.

Jim

>Kurt