Subject: AttributeTypeValue and binary

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:20:45 -0800

RFC 2251, 4.1.6:
   A field of type AttributeValue takes on as its value either a string
   encoding of a AttributeValue data type, or an OCTET STRING containing
   an encoded binary value, depending on whether the "binary" option is
   present in the companion AttributeDescription to this AttributeValue.
        AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING

This wording can be interpreted as either:
   A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING which contains
   either a string encoding of a AttributeValue data type or an
   binary encoded value depending on whether the "binary" option is
   present in the companion AttributeDescription to this AttributeValue.

or:
   A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING which contains
   either a string encoding of a AttributeValue data type or an
   OCTET STRING containing an binary encoded value depending on
   whether the "binary" option is present in the companion
   AttributeDescription to this AttributeValue.

RFC 2252, 4.3.1 provides clarification that the correct interpretation
is the former.  I think RFC 2251 should be clarified to remove any
doubt.

Actually, I suggest that the description of the "binary" transfer
option be described completely within (and only within) RFC 2251
and that "binary" syntax be described within RFC 2252.  

Also as previously noted on the LDAPext mailing list (see archives
for discussion), "binary" transfer of values of "binary" syntax
makes little sense and likely should be disallowed.

Comments?

---

From: "Ryan Moats" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:31:06 -0600

my $0.02 (I like it!), w/ <rm>...</rm> Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
Subject: AttributeTypeValue and binary

RFC 2251, 4.1.6:

or:

<rm>This makes sense to me</rm>

<rm>This also makes sense to me</rm>

<rm>I don't remember a reason for it, so I'm ok with it</rm>

Comments?

---

From: Ludovic Poitou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:06:34 +0100

This sounds good to me.
Just my 2 Euro cents inlined below. ;-)

Ludovic.

>    OCTET STRING containing an binary encoded value depending on

should be  : ...containing a binary encoded value...

--
Ludovic Poitou
Sun Microsystems Inc.
iPlanet E-Commerce Solutions - Directory Group - Grenoble - France

---

From: "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:38:21 +1100

Kurt,

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
> Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 8:21
> To: [email-masked]

[snip]
 
> makes little sense and likely should be disallowed.

With regard to my other message on this subject, the ";binary" transfer
of values of Binary syntax is sensible but redundantly requested if the
default encoding for the Binary syntax is taken to be BER.

Regards,
Steven

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:10:18 -0800

At 02:38 PM 1/19/01 +1100, Steven Legg wrote:
>Kurt wrote:

My rational for disallowing ";binary" transfer of an value of
binary syntax is my opinion that ";binary" transfer is restricted
to transfer of LDAPsyntaxes who's OID refers to an ASN.1 data type
definition (RFC 2251, 4.1.5.1) and the binary syntax OID does not
refer to an ASN.1 data type definition (RFC 2252).

Kurt