Re: Steven's protocol comments

[Steven Legg <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>]

Jim,

I was actually questioning the "It will subsequently cease", but
the pointer got moved by all the quoting. The sentence looked like an
implementation imperative in which case I was suggesting a rewording
to "It MUST subsequently cease". Kurt's rewording resolves my (minor)
concern.

Regards,
Steven

Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> Hmm, I think Steven needs to comment on why he was questioning the MUST.
>
>  >>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 10/20/03 11:39:34 PM >>>
> At 10:13 PM 10/20/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>  >>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <_ Kurt@OpenLDAP.org 
> <mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>_ > 10/8/03 7:59:20 AM >>>
>  ><snip>
>  >
>  >>> 4.13.3.1. Graceful Closure
>  >>> The other party, if it receives a TLS closure alert, MUST immediately
>  >>> transmit a TLS closure alert. It will subsequently cease to send TLS
>  >>> ^^^^ MUST ?
>  >>
>  >>Please consider the replace text I offer in my comments.
>  >Kurt, I didn't see any replacement text in your comments for this section.
>
> Sorry, how about?
> The other party, upon receipt of a TLS closure alert, SHALL
> immediately send a TLS closure alert and then terminate the
> TLS connection. The LDAP connection remains established
> unless subsequently terminated.