After reviewing the current usage of the term "association" in protocol-27 and then reading and considering the various opinions expressed on the proper usage of the term, I have decided that every connection has an association that has the same lifetime as the connection. The association may pass through a number of states during that lifetime, and the bind operation is the way that a client can change that state. I have attempted to reflect this usage throughout authmeth-13, although I suspect that my effort may need a bit more work before it's as clear as it can and should be in this regard.
Roger
>>>Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 10/05/04 10:08 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