Re: Misuse of the term "association" in [Protocol]

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

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 07:45 AM 10/5/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>
>>>The 4.6 text:
>>>>   If the association changes or the connection fails,  
>>>>   whether the modification occurred or not is indeterminate.
>>>should read:
>>>>   If the LDAP exchange is terminated, or the Modify operation
>>>>   is abandoned due to subsequent operation which requires all
>>>>   outstanding operations to be abandoned (e.g., the Bind
>>>>   operation), whether the modification completed successfully
>>>>   or not is indeterminate.
>>
>>Why the "due to..." part - doesn't the same apply to an operation
>>abandoned by the abandon operation?
> 
> Yes, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the operations
> otherwise abandoned (for instance, by the cancel operation).
> The original sentence was intended only to cover two cases,
> re-bind and connection termination.  The other case (abandon
> operation) is separately handled.  The new text does the same.

Do we need this sentence at all?  It is mentioned under Abandon,
Operation and LDAP Exchange Relationship etc, and it is not mentioned
in the sections for the other update operations.

The same goes for the preceding sentence:

   Due to the requirement 
   for atomicity in applying the list of modifications in the Modify 
   Request, the client may expect that no modifications of the DIT have 
   been performed if the Modify Response received indicates any sort of 
   error, and that all requested modifications have been performed if 
   the Modify Response indicates successful completion of the Modify 
   Operation.

Though it's useful to keep a reminder that the operation is atomic and
will either fail or complete successfully, since its LDAPMessage "looks
like" a series of modifications.

-- 
Hallvard