Re: Protocol: MUST NOT abandon multiple times

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

At 11:34 AM 12/27/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>At 12:59 PM 12/18/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>>>>>Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 12/10/03 4:36:13 AM >>>
>>>>> 4.11. Abandon Operation 
>>>>
>>>>> Clients MUST NOT send abandon requests for the same operation 
>>>>> multiple times,
>>>>
>>>> Why not, since the server is required to handle it anyway:
>>> 
>>> Good question, this is a holdover from RFC 2251. I propose we remove
>>> it.
>> 
>> I suggest changing it to SHOULD NOT instead.  Clients should not
>> generate extraneous PDUs.
>
>Nitpick: Lowercase 'should not' seems more proper.  There are plenty of
>other ways clients may misbehave which do not have a 'SHOULD NOT'.
>Still, I'm fine with 'SHOULD NOT'.

I note that the document does need a keyword review.  I think there are
many which should be lowercased (and maybe a few that should be uppercased).
This particular one I can go either way on.

>While we are at it, here is another unnecessary "MUST" in section 4.11:
>
>    The MessageID MUST be that of an operation which was requested
>    earlier in this LDAP association.
>
>I suggest s/MUST be/is/. 

I concur.  Here we're describing what "is" the protocol.

>As with the previous "MUST NOT", the server
>is required to handle it if the client misbehaves:
>
>    Servers MUST discard abandon requests for message IDs they do not
>    recognize, (...)
>
>-- 
>Hallvard