Re: protocol: closing SASL upon Unbind

For my education, what about this is slightly wrong?
 
Jim

>>> Hallvard B Furuseth <[email protected]> 1/24/05 12:22:03 PM
>>>
Ouch. I lost those threads completely, while trying to unravel some
SASL stuff. IIRC; after Kurt's last (private) explanation I think
this text will be slightly wrong whatever we do, unless we leave the
details underspecified as in earlier drafts. Or unless the SASL spec
is modified. So I guess this text is as good as any.

Jim Sermersheim writes:
> Unless there are further issues with this, I will replace the
current
> instructions for Unbind with Kurts suggested text here.
>
> >>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" < [email protected] > 12/7/04 6:43:45 PM >>>
> My previous suggestion does not adequately cover the
> issue of graceful closure of the LDAP session. That is,
> the reason why a particular order was suggested was that
> it was thought to be graceful. So while I have no
> problem with removing the ordering aspect of the current
> text, I'd like to indicate that Unbind/Notice of Disconnect
> are intended to affect a graceful closure.
>
> Hence, I suggest:
>
> The client, upon transmission of the UnbindRequest, and
> the server, upon receipt of the UnbindRequest are to
> gracefully close the LDAP session by ceasing exchange
> at the LDAP message layer, tearing down any SASL layer,
> tearing down any TLS layer, and closing the transport
> connection.
>
> I note that while the 4 actions the implementation might need
> to take are stated in the order which the implementation likely
> would need to affect graceful closure of the LDAP session,
> the text does not actually prescribe a particular order, nor
> does it imply that any exchange within the SASL and/or TLS
> layer would been necessary.

-- 
Hallvard