After reviewing the current usage of the term "association" in
protocol-27 and then reading and considering the various opinions expressed on
the proper usage of the term, I have decided that every connection has an
association that has the same lifetime as the connection. The association may
pass through a number of states during that lifetime, and the bind operation
is the way that a client can change that state. I have attempted to reflect
this usage throughout authmeth-13, although I suspect that my effort may need
a bit more work before it's as clear as it can and should be in this regard.
Roger
>>>Hallvard B Furuseth
<h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 10/05/04 10:08 am >>>
Jim
Sermersheim writes:
>Then there is (or at least there was) the thought
that we need to
>provide a term which describes the association of the
authN and authZ
>state as it relates to Layer 4. Kurt's suggestion is
that we don't need
>to define (nor name) this. But that we instead
update the doc in the
>places he described. I agree with most of the
changes, but the change to
>Section 6 makes me feel like the term was
useful, and we're rewording
>just so we can drop the use of the
term.
My vote is to drop "association". It doesn't seem very
useful to define
a term which is only needed once, and apparently this is
the only place
in [Protocol] which does need it. I do like the
current wording better
than Kurt's, but I also dislike to require readers
to remember more
definitions than
necessary.
--
Hallvard