[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: protocol: strongAuthRequired

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: 

Renaming the result code to strongerAuthRequired.

Kurt and I have talked about this.  Is the suggestion dead?  Or do we
take that later, if [authmeth] discussions indicate it?  (I believe my
suggestion of 'authRequired' is no longer relevant, with the death of
invalidated associations.)

I am fine with renaming this result code.

Are you aware that this could lead to a name change in various existing LDAP client APIs?

Therefore I'm against such a name change although the name change would make the meaning more clear.

Ciao, Michael.