[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: protocol: "outstanding" operations
I think I prefer uncompleted or unfinished over remaining previous.
outstanding catch by the way * har har.
>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 6/11/04 8:34:15 AM >>>
Well, Jim is back, I believe. I'll begin small:-)
Roger, note that Authmeth has two 'outstanding's too.
Looking a bit closer at the texts, I think only the 'outstanding' in
[Protocol] 4.1.1.1 (Message ID) is not self-explanatory.
Here is a possible replacement text:
A client MUST NOT reuse a previous request's message ID in the
same LDAP exchange until it knows that the server has completed
or successfully abandoned the operation.
Or maybe s/successfully abandoned/discarded/.
If anyone feels like replacing the others, here are some suggestions.
And two non-suggestions for Abandon; I like 'outstanding' better than
the replacement texts I could think of:
4.2.1 (Processing of the Bind Request):
s/outstanding/previous/.
4.3 (Unbind Operation):
s/outstanding/remaining previous/.
4.4.1 (Notice of Disconnection):
s/outstanding/remaining/.
4.11 (Abandon Operation):
Not s/outstanding/previous/ (server side), that implies operations that
have responded too. Not 'uncompleted previous', that looks a bit like
the server must at least have started to process the operation.
4.14.3 (Removal of the TLS Layer):
s/outstanding/remaining previous/?
5.1 (Operation and LDAP exchange Relationship):
s/outstanding/remaining/ (server side and client side).
A.2 (Result Codes#operationsError):
s/while there are other operations outstanding/
before all previous operations have completed/ ?
[Authmeth] 3.1.1 (Start TLS Request):
> A client may send the Start TLS extended request at any time after
> establishing an LDAP connection, except:
> (...)
- when previous requests remain for the server to process on
the same LDAP exchange.
> The result of violating any of these requirements is a resultCode of
> operationsError, as described in [Protocol] section 4.13.2.2. Client
> implementers should note that it is possible to receive a resultCode
> of success for a Start TLS operation that is sent on a connection
> with outstanding LDAP operations if the server has sufficient time
s/outstanding LDAP operations/remaining previous requests/.
> to process them prior to its receiving the Start TLS request.
> Implementors of clients should ensure that they do not inadvertently
> depend upon this race condition.
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 04:13 AM 5/19/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>I wrote:
>>> A recent poster to the OpenLDAP-software list had not understood what an
>>> outstanding operation is. Maybe [protocol] should define it at the time
>>> of first use. Something like this:
>>>
>>> at the server: a request which is being or waiting to be processed.
>>> at the client: as above,
>>
>>including requests sent by the client which the server has not yet
>>received,
>>
>>> , or an operation for which the server has
>>> sent a response which the client has not yet received.
>>
>>It gets a bit cumbersome, I'm afraid.
>
> That's my fear. Are such clarifications going cause more
> confusion?
>
>>Improvements are welcome:-)
>
> My suggestion would be avoiding the need to define the
> term. Instead, I would try to reword any sentence which
> used the phrase "outstanding operation" (or "outstanding
> request") to be reasonable clear without having to
> rely on separately stated terminology definitions.
--
Hallvard