Subject: syntax ID and ;binary

From: Christopher Oliva <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:34:56 -0400

I think we need to change the usage of ;binary with respect to Certificate,
Certificate List and Certificate Pair.

I realize there is talk of moving the definition of these syntaxes out of
the syntax ID and into a PKIX ID - I think these changes should be reflected
in the syntax ID until that move is performed.

Basically, I'd like to make use of ";binary" within the attribute
description optional for these syntaxes. The ID should state that these
values are transferred as binary encode BER values by default and therefore
the ";binary" option is not necessary in protocol client and server
messages. However, the ";binary" option can be included in attribute
descriptions within the protocol - a server and client MUST treat an
attribute description with and without ";binary" as identical for these
syntaxes. For example, "userCertificate" and "userCertificate;binary" would
refer to the exact same set of values that would be encoded the same for
protocol transfer.

Chris.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark C Smith)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:58:55 -0400

> Christopher Oliva wrote:
> 
> I think we need to change the usage of ;binary with respect to
> Certificate, Certificate List and Certificate Pair.
> 
> I realize there is talk of moving the definition of these syntaxes out
> of the syntax ID and into a PKIX ID - I think these changes should be
> reflected in the syntax ID until that move is performed.
> 
> description optional for these syntaxes. The ID should state that
> these values are transferred as binary encode BER values by default
> and therefore the ";binary" option is not necessary in protocol client
> and server messages. However, the ";binary" option can be included in
> attribute descriptions within the protocol - a server and client MUST
> treat an attribute description with and without ";binary" as identical
> for these syntaxes. For example, "userCertificate" and
> "userCertificate;binary" would refer to the exact same set of values
> that would be encoded the same for protocol transfer.

I disagree with your proposal.  Some (many?) existing LDAPv3
implementations would fail to meet the revised specification.  What
problem are you trying to solve by making this change?

-- 
Mark Smith
Directory Product Development / Netscape Communications Corp.
My words are my own, not my employer's.            Got LDAP?