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

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

I agree with this, and I'll probably suggest some minor changes to some
of Kurt's suggestions.

Jim

>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 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
authZ
> state as it relates to Layer 4. Kurt's suggestion is that we don't
need
> 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
to
> Section 6 makes me feel like the term was useful, and we're
rewording
> just so we can drop the use of the term.

My vote is to drop "association".  It doesn't seem very useful to
define
a term which is only needed once, and apparently this is the only
place
in [Protocol] which does need it.  I do like the current wording
better
than Kurt's, but I also dislike to require readers to remember more
definitions than necessary.

-- 
Hallvard