[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: ITS #7161, ppolicy pwdFailureTime resolution should be better than 1 second
- To: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Subject: Re: ITS #7161, ppolicy pwdFailureTime resolution should be better than 1 second
- From: "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 14:39:01 -0700
- Cc: openldap-technical@openldap.org
- Content-disposition: inline
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zdYWHasaZs/6M+gfY5O2/tUpBEI3X49JQLnVMVYfO4U=; b=IemALhE2BPExVOKefcCv7H5Fh9K6VPQ3BTsFpo6kQVwrHuJK+4IX2J07D/4LclmSZS XzLJtVsYj5tcXKzQIW3AJoePYWIZbac/fqdsc65Vrtn8qCdPSCUN2BOOLRXe+EipzwrP 1cIPi+gAsXAOyzR64KmSHiXQxCcUiMSysb1j2M21VBniM0zchzf8F+57qxJZ3saBFgpp Wpe8cSgHwUF//pIvjlOeEmHvIIaZTCImZhFp/OPlQ7aNnxqefkZ6HAJ/3mMvsACq62nV VrG5PKV270nwWzW3xMQG9BFQ43KqJY5gcCglwF6ENyMgk5Yz+XRkFz9DB/7tfDWpKDV0 0cQw==
- In-reply-to: <53801726.6090309@symas.com>
- References: <20140523232454.GU1367@bender.unx.csupomona.edu> <537FE80E.9070808@symas.com> <03de01cf76f6$5b55dd60$12019820$@acm.org> <53801726.6090309@symas.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:51:02PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> The *failure* occurred at that instant, not at the instant the request was
> received. It is simply a matter of correctness.
For my purposes, it doesn't really matter whether the bind is considered
to have failed as of when it was attempted vs when all the processing
was completed, so if you prefer the latter I'll rework my patch to keep
those semanics.
> You need to actually use microseconds, since the time-increment is
> only unique on the local server and will not guarantee uniqueness in a
> replication scenario.
Ah, good point.
Thanks for the feedback...