Re: "connections" (Was: protocol-22 comments)

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> Another comment: one reason not to use "stream" to refer to
> the exchange of LDAP messages is that LDAP messages are
> addressed independently (by message id) and routed
> independently to the directory operation executed at an
> higher level.  That is, messages from multiple operations
> (each a source) are multiplexed in the exchange.

What of it?  The messages still arrive one after another, and
the order of their arrival is significant.  That might just
as well be an argument in favor of calling it a stream, as
a reminder of that ordering.

> I note that my primary interest is not which particular
> terms are used where.  I am primarily interested in ensuring
> that our terms are well-defined and used in an unambiguous
> manner.

Fine, but hopefully we can find terms which nobody considers
misleading.

> I wouldn't object to using "LDAP connection" and
> "transport connection" as long as we never use the term
> "connection" without qualification.

"transport connection" is fine.
"LDAP connection" for the LDAP protocol layer/stream/whatever
still sounds dubious to me, but then we have votes against
all suggestions so far (*connection, LDAP layer, (LDAP) stream).

-- 
Hallvard