RE: "LDAP exchange" (was: Misuse of the term "association" in [Protocol])

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Ramsay, Ron writes:
> I had a look in *protocol*26.txt for a definition of "LDAP exchange" and
> got nothing! Here are some quotes:
> (...)
> 
> "The term "LDAP exchange" refers to application layer where LDAP PDUs 
>    are exchanged between protocol peers."
> 
> - I wouldn't call this a definition either. a) How can an "exchange" be
>   a layer? b) It "refers" to an application layer, but what is it?

(a) Yes, you have made clear that you find this term misleading, but
    that's the meaning [Protocol] states that it uses this term for, so
    that's what it means in [Protocol].

(b) Section 2 contains a list of `The term "foo" refers to bar.'
    It had never occurred to me _not_ to consider that a list of
    definitions of those terms, but if you find it unclear, you can
    always suggest another wording for that too.

> Now, tell me, what is your objection to "association".

That [Authmeth] already uses that term with another meaning.  See
section 2 (and my soon-to-be-posted and others' replies in this thread).

> Or, to be more
> specific, what sentence or paragraph in protocol-26 do you think
> requires a term like (ugh) "exchange"?

It doesn't require a term like "exchange".  It requires some term which
has the meaning which [Protocol] gives the term "LDAP exchange".

>> (...) If you wish to suggest a better term, read this thread
> first:
> 
>   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200404/msg00023.html
> 
> <RR> This seems to be talking about "connections"?

Yes, and the thread starting there also talks about rejecting "stream",
"LDAP layer" etc for the meaning which we now have "LDAP exchange" (as
far as I can see).

> Personally I prefer several other terms over "LDAP exchange", but I
> don't feel strongly about it.

-- 
Hallvard