Subject: RE: AttributeTypeValue and binary

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:12:29 -0700

Wait, before you withdraw, one question.  Does the spec state that all syntaxes MUST be defined with either a string encoding or an encoding whos transmission is signified by an AttributeDescription.option? If not, I believe we need to amend my suggested paragraph.

Note that your read of my question here is subject to your interpretation of the term "string encoding". I believe "string encoding" means nothing more than the fact that there's some way to string together octets to form a defined syntax. The octets may contain any value (as long as they meet the syntax requirement).

Jim

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]> 1/24/01 8:29:40 PM >>>
I withdrawn this issue.  I had reviewed the suggestion in an
incorrect context.

I have no objection to Jim's last suggestion.  I also agree
with Steven in regards to "binary" vs "BER".

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:29:48 -0800

At 04:12 PM 1/25/01 -0700, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>Wait, before you withdraw, one question.  Does the spec state that all syntaxes MUST be defined with either a string encoding or an encoding whos transmission is signified by an AttributeDescription.option?

Well, some means for transfer of values must be defined but, IIRC,
this is not an explicit statement to this effect.  I think there
is an assumption made in RFC 2252 in that if there is not a string
encoding defined, the syntax is transferred using the binary
transfer option and BER encoded.

As I noted in:
  http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200101/msg00054.html

I believe we should consider adding to the specification
statements which say:
 1) each syntax has a default encoding which is to be
    used unless the client requests an alternative encoding, and
 2) a syntax's default encoding is its string encoding unless
    stated otherwise.

>If not, I believe we need to amend my suggested paragraph.
>