Subject: RE: Syntax Survey Version 2

From: "Ramsay, Ron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:53:52 +1100

Mark,

I agree.

The problem with photo is not whether it is used, but that it appears there
to be used. Someone locally tried to use it to store a GIF image thinking
that it would be more appropriate than jpegPhoto which, they argued, should
be used to store only JPEG images. If the syntax had been specified, perhaps
this wouldn't happen.

The other issue I thought this touched on was the binary syntax itself.
There is some thought that binary syntax shouldn't be supported. What are
the implications for syntaxes like photo?

Ron.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, 1 March 2001 1:29
To: Ramsay, Ron
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Syntax Survey Version 2

"Ramsay, Ron" wrote:
> 
> Steven,
> 
> I note that inetOrgPerson contains the attribute 'photo' without defining
> the syntax. A look at RFC 1274 reveals that it is actually binary. While
the
> COSINE document is quite old, RFC 2798 is prolonging its life. I'm
wondering
> if it is now necessary to define the syntax for 'photo'? I would think
that
> either
> a. inetOrgPerson is supported by the LDAP specification and the syntax of
> 'photo' is defined in that specification, or
> b. inetOrgPerson is not supported and RFC 2798 should define the syntax.

I vote for choice "b."  RFC 2798 is an Informational RFC and as part of
the LDAPBIS work we are not obligated to do any extra work to support
inetOrgPerson.  I doubt photo is used much, if at all, in deployed
directories and I for one would not like to encourage its use by adding
it to a standards track RFC.

-Mark Smith
 Netscape Communications Corp.    Got inetOrgPerson?  Get it!