[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Protocol: MUST NOT abandon multiple times
At 11:34 AM 12/27/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>At 12:59 PM 12/18/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>>>>>Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 12/10/03 4:36:13 AM >>>
>>>>> 4.11. Abandon Operation
>>>>
>>>>> Clients MUST NOT send abandon requests for the same operation
>>>>> multiple times,
>>>>
>>>> Why not, since the server is required to handle it anyway:
>>>
>>> Good question, this is a holdover from RFC 2251. I propose we remove
>>> it.
>>
>> I suggest changing it to SHOULD NOT instead. Clients should not
>> generate extraneous PDUs.
>
>Nitpick: Lowercase 'should not' seems more proper. There are plenty of
>other ways clients may misbehave which do not have a 'SHOULD NOT'.
>Still, I'm fine with 'SHOULD NOT'.
I note that the document does need a keyword review. I think there are
many which should be lowercased (and maybe a few that should be uppercased).
This particular one I can go either way on.
>While we are at it, here is another unnecessary "MUST" in section 4.11:
>
> The MessageID MUST be that of an operation which was requested
> earlier in this LDAP association.
>
>I suggest s/MUST be/is/.
I concur. Here we're describing what "is" the protocol.
>As with the previous "MUST NOT", the server
>is required to handle it if the client misbehaves:
>
> Servers MUST discard abandon requests for message IDs they do not
> recognize, (...)
>
>--
>Hallvard