[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: "LDAP exchange" (was: Misuse of the term "association" in [Protocol])
I agree with this, and I'll probably suggest some minor changes to some
of Kurt's suggestions.
>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <email@example.com> 10/5/04 10:08:00 AM
Jim Sermersheim writes:
> Then there is (or at least there was) the thought that we need to
> provide a term which describes the association of the authN and
> state as it relates to Layer 4. Kurt's suggestion is that we don't
> to define (nor name) this. But that we instead update the doc in the
> places he described. I agree with most of the changes, but the change
> Section 6 makes me feel like the term was useful, and we're
> just so we can drop the use of the term.
My vote is to drop "association". It doesn't seem very useful to
a term which is only needed once, and apparently this is the only
in [Protocol] which does need it. I do like the current wording
than Kurt's, but I also dislike to require readers to remember more
definitions than necessary.