|
For my education, what about this is slightly wrong?
Jim
>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 1/24/05 12:22:03 PM >>> Ouch. I lost those threads completely, while trying to unravel some SASL stuff. IIRC; after Kurt's last (private) explanation I think this text will be slightly wrong whatever we do, unless we leave the details underspecified as in earlier drafts. Or unless the SASL spec is modified. So I guess this text is as good as any. Jim Sermersheim writes: > Unless there are further issues with this, I will replace the current > instructions for Unbind with Kurts suggested text here. > > >>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" < Kurt@OpenLDAP.org > 12/7/04 6:43:45 PM >>> > My previous suggestion does not adequately cover the > issue of graceful closure of the LDAP session. That is, > the reason why a particular order was suggested was that > it was thought to be graceful. So 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 > connection. > > 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. -- Hallvard |