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

Re: C API: minor comments

To: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>
Subject: Re: C API: minor comments
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <kurt@boolean.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:59:10 -0800
Cc: Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>, "Paul Leach (Exchange)" <paulle@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, howes@yahoo.com, "Andy Herron (Exchange)" <andyhe@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "Anoop Anantha (Exchange)" <anoopa@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, kurt@OpenLDAP.Org, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <16985.942782442@threadgill.austin.innosoft.com>
References: <"Your message of Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:50:31 EST." <3831B587.7DB56145@netscape.com>
Resent-date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"ggKrjD.A.SFB.9XcM4"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

At 02:00 PM 11/16/99 -0600, Mark Wahl wrote:
>2251 does not restrict clients from using message id 0, since it was really
>a client behavior: if your client always does a Bind for its first message,
>it would be able to distinguish between a Extended Response and a Bind 
>Response.

The first message a client gets might be an unsolicited notice of
disconnect.


----
Kurt D. Zeilenga		<kurt@boolean.net>
Net Boolean Incorporated	<http://www.boolean.net/>

References:
- Re: C API: minor comments
  - From: Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com>
- Re: C API: minor comments
  - From: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>

Prev by Date: Re: C API: minor comments
Next by Date: RE: C LDAP API: security considerations
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread