[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: protocol: closing SASL upon Unbind
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> (...) while I have no
> problem with removing the ordering aspect of the current
> text, I'd like to indicate that Unbind/Notice of Disconnect
> are intended to affect a graceful closure.
> Hence, I suggest:
> The client, upon transmission of the UnbindRequest, and
> the server, upon receipt of the UnbindRequest are to
> gracefully close the LDAP session by ceasing exchange
> at the LDAP message layer, tearing down any SASL layer,
> tearing down any TLS layer, and closing the transport
> I note that while the 4 actions the implementation might need
> to take are stated in the order which the implementation likely
> would need to affect graceful closure of the LDAP session,
> the text does not actually prescribe a particular order, nor
> does it imply that any exchange within the SASL and/or TLS
> layer would been necessary.
It still looks like a list of actions to take to me, so if it is
supposed to be unordered I'd prefer to swap SASL and TLS so it fits
[SASL] if one does take it to be ordered. That seems more important
than listing it in the order which looks more graceful.
BTW, just to have stated it publicly: I didn't quite understand your
previous objection to "SASL and TLS layers" without comma, and as
discussed privately I disagree with part of your previous message
anyway, but hopefully that's irrelevant now.