RE: Lifetime of associations

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

There does seem to be some terminology issues here.
I suggest we should continue to focus on getting [protocol]
fixed, then have [authmeth] simply apply that terminology.

The term "LDAP Exchange" was intended, I believe, to refer
to the protocol session at the LDAP PDU level, which may
include multiple operations (bind, starttls, etc.) which
directly impact the authentication/authorization/security
state.  The word "exchange" was selected over "session"
as "session" commonly is used to refer to the octet stream
carried by the transport service, e.g., the steam carried
on the "connection".  (See the picture in Section 5.)

The term "LDAP association", as defined, refers to the
CURRENT authentication/authorization/security state 
associated with an LDAP Exchange.  The word "current" in
the definition should likely be dropped.  We should,
on use, qualify whether we are talking about the
past, present, or future state of the exchange.

There is no currently defined term which to refer to
lifetime of an LDAP association.  As the association
may change at any time, I don't think we need one.

As the messageId reuse doesn't depend on the
authentication/authorization/security state associated
with the exchange, the reuse discussion should not
involve use of the term "association".

As the exchange includes PDUs sent before and
after a particular Bind request, one has to be careful
in s/association/exchange/.  However, at least in
section 4.1.1.1, I think it okay to do this replacement.

Kurt