Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ldapext-ldap-java-api-11.txt

From: "Steve Sonntag" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:30:36 -0600

>>> [email-masked]> 02-Oct-00 4:09:59 AM >>

The current draft defines hop_limit as 10, see 4.7.7 &
4.39.39.  I say leave it as it currently is in the draft

-Steve

> Is hop_limit set to zero by default?  Does zero imply no limit?

  The default value and the semantics of zero should be defined in the
draft. Zero should imply no limit, but the default should be a
reasonable value (to allow reasonable nesting levels of reference while
preventing infinite loops); I propose 5.

TJH> 5 sounds fine to me.

> Section 4.32.3:
> ---------------
> Would it be useful to have a "isReponseReceived( int msgid )" method
> as well?

  That might be useful.

> How about an "isComplete( int msgid )"?

  I'm not sure that makes sense: if all results have been retrieved for
a particular message ID, there is no longer a queue maintained for it.
getMessageIDs() will not return the ID. It would be difficult for the
application to distinguish between the request being complete (all
results retrieved for that ID) on the one hand, and an invalid ID on the
other.

TJH> I agree that if there is no longer anything maintained for the message
ID
TJH> that it would be hard to distinguish.  But if an application wanted to
TJH> hold of on processing the response until the complete message was
TJH> received it could test such an "isComplete()" result.

> Section 4.40.1:
> ---------------
> Will the client send off abandon requests for all outstanding (but
> incomplete) operations if a bind() is invoked?

  No. That doesn't seem justified, IMHO.

TJH> agreed.

>
> Thanks,
> Tim Hahn
>
> Internet: [email-masked]
> Internal: Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
> phone: 607.752.6388     tie-line: 8/852.6388
> fax: 607.752.3681

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:01:02 -0400

Steve,

Ok by me - as long as the default value is defined.  10 sounds fine.

Regards,
Tim Hahn

"Steve Sonntag" <[email-masked]> on 10/03/2000 06:30:36 PM

To:   <[email-masked]>, Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject:  Re: comments on draft-ietf-ldapext-ldap-java-api-11.txt

-Steve

  That might be useful.

TJH> I agree that if there is no longer anything  maintained for the
message
ID
TJH> that it would be hard to  distinguish.  But if an application wanted
to
TJH> hold of on  processing the response until the complete message was
TJH> received it  could test such an "isComplete()" result.

TJH>  agreed.