Re: protocol: "outstanding" operations

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

I think I prefer uncompleted or unfinished over remaining previous.

outstanding catch by the way * har har. 

>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 6/11/04 8:34:15 AM >>>
Well, Jim is back, I believe.  I'll begin small:-)

Roger, note that Authmeth has two 'outstanding's too.


Looking a bit closer at the texts, I think only the 'outstanding' in
[Protocol] 4.1.1.1 (Message ID) is not self-explanatory.
Here is a possible replacement text:

   A client MUST NOT reuse a previous request's message ID in the
   same LDAP exchange until it knows that the server has completed
   or successfully abandoned the operation.

Or maybe s/successfully abandoned/discarded/.


If anyone feels like replacing the others, here are some suggestions.
And two non-suggestions for Abandon; I like 'outstanding' better than
the replacement texts I could think of:

4.2.1 (Processing of the Bind Request):

s/outstanding/previous/.

4.3 (Unbind Operation):

s/outstanding/remaining previous/.

4.4.1 (Notice of Disconnection):

s/outstanding/remaining/.

4.11 (Abandon Operation):

Not s/outstanding/previous/ (server side), that implies operations that
have responded too.  Not 'uncompleted previous', that looks a bit like
the server must at least have started to process the operation.

4.14.3 (Removal of the TLS Layer):

s/outstanding/remaining previous/?

5.1 (Operation and LDAP exchange Relationship):

s/outstanding/remaining/ (server side and client side).

A.2 (Result Codes#operationsError):

s/while there are other operations outstanding/
  before all previous operations have completed/ ?


[Authmeth] 3.1.1 (Start TLS Request):

>   A client may send the Start TLS extended request at any time after 
>   establishing an LDAP connection, except: 
>      (...)

       - when previous requests remain for the server to process on
         the same LDAP exchange.

>   The result of violating any of these requirements is a resultCode of
>   operationsError, as described in [Protocol] section 4.13.2.2. Client
>   implementers should note that it is possible to receive a resultCode
>   of success for a Start TLS operation that is sent on a connection
>   with outstanding LDAP operations if the server has sufficient time 

s/outstanding LDAP operations/remaining previous requests/.

>   to process them prior to its receiving the Start TLS request. 
>   Implementors of clients should ensure that they do not inadvertently 
>   depend upon this race condition. 


Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 04:13 AM 5/19/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>I wrote:
>>> A recent poster to the OpenLDAP-software list had not understood what an
>>> outstanding operation is.  Maybe [protocol] should define it at the time
>>> of first use.  Something like this:
>>>   
>>>   at the server: a request which is being or waiting to be processed.
>>>   at the client: as above,
>>
>>including requests sent by the client which the server has not yet
>>received,
>>
>>>   , or an operation for which the server has
>>>   sent a response which the client has not yet received.
>>
>>It gets a bit cumbersome, I'm afraid.
> 
> That's my fear.  Are such clarifications going cause more
> confusion? 
> 
>>Improvements are welcome:-)
> 
> My suggestion would be avoiding the need to define the
> term.  Instead, I would try to reword any sentence which
> used the phrase "outstanding operation" (or "outstanding
> request") to be reasonable clear without having to
> rely on separately stated terminology definitions.

-- 
Hallvard