Subject: ;binary in extensible filters without attr

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 22:32:54 -0800

FWIW, I note that:
	(;binary:1.1.1:=\04\02\48\69)

is illegal. That is, there is no way to specify binary
transfer of the assertion value unless a type is present.
Oh well.

Kurt

---

From: "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:11:54 +1100

All,

Is there any consensus on what is to be done about the syntaxes referenced
by the table in Section 4.3.2 RFC 2252, but not otherwise defined ?
Some syntaxes, like Delivery Method, have definitions in earlier LDAP RFCs,
which can presumably be incorporated into RFC 2252bis, but for some syntaxes
the only definitions for the string encoding I can find come from the long
expired draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-attributes-03.txt . Are these definitions
going to be tidied up and used, or will the syntaxes for these definitions
be
revised to always be transferred as ";binary" ?

Regards,
Steven

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:50:38 -0800

>by the table in Section 4.3.2 RFC 2252, but not otherwise defined ?

There might be... but not enough to gauge the consensus (or lack thereof)
of the WG.

>expired draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-attributes-03.txt .

The Delivery Method syntax is defined in RFC 2256.

>Are these definitions

It's likely that the each syntax will have to be reviewed to
sure that the specification is complete, has multiple independently
developed interoperable implementations, and that it is otherwise
suitable for publication as part of the LDAPv3 Draft Standard.

Kurt

---

From: "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:32:13 +1100

Kurt,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
> Sent: Friday, 16 February 2001 11:51
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Incomplete Syntaxes Referenced by RFC 2252
> 
> 

Oops! Don't know how I missed that. It just demonstrates the importance
of having all the syntaxes in the one document. The DL Submit Permission
syntax is the sort of example I should have referenced.

> suitable for publication as part of the LDAPv3 Draft Standard.

Fair enough, who's going to do the review, how and when ? The missing
definitions should at least be pasted into one or other of the revised
core document drafts so we know what we're dealing with.

Regards,
Steven

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:33:11 -0800

>core document drafts so we know what we're dealing with.

Well, it just needs to get done (in a manner consistent with WG
guidelines).

I suggest a table be prepared that for each syntax provides:
        1) normative reference for ASN.1 type (if one)
                (if external, any RFC describing the specification)
        2) normative reference for string representation (if one)
                (if external, any RFC describing the specification)
        3) strongest imperative level applicable (MUST, SHOULD, MAY)

Either the editor or another volunteer can prepare the table.  The who
here depends more on who has the time to put this together.  The sooner,
the better.  This table would then be augmented by a quick implementation
survey.

I suspect we'll make determination for most syntaxes quickly.  However,
there will be some requiring more significant discussions.  The editor
need not wait for determination of all syntaxes before taking action
on any syntax where the WG has reach consensus on what's to be done.

Kurt

---

From: "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:44:56 +1100

Kurt,

> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, 16 February 2001 13:33
> Subject: RE: Incomplete Syntaxes Referenced by RFC 2252

[snip]

> here depends more on who has the time to put this together.

Since I brought this up, and have been chasing down the references lately
anyway, I'll do it.

Regards,
Steven
  
> The sooner,