Subject: RE: AttributeTypeValue and binary

From: "Ramsay, Ron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:56:40 +1100

Kurt,

I would argue that jpegPhoto doesn't have a string encoding, it is just the
raw binary.

And, once again, BER encodings are not string encodings.

Ron.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 14:50
To: Ramsay, Ron
Cc: Mark Smith; Jim Sermersheim; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: AttributeTypeValue and binary

At 02:09 PM 1/25/01 +1100, Ramsay, Ron wrote:
>Let us return to the beginning.
>
>In the beginning, all syntaxes were specified in ASN.1 by reference to
>X.500. LDAP tried to give these a friendly face by defining human-readable
>encodings, the so-called 'string' encodings. I believe that 'string' in
LDAP
>means human-readable.

No.  JPEG has a 'string' encoding but is not human-readable.
("Values in this syntax are encoded as strings...")

>I don't see how string-encoding can encompass binary syntaxes.

Because values of this syntax are encoded as strings contain
BER encoded instances of an ASN.1 data type.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:19:23 -0800

At 02:56 PM 1/25/01 +1100, Ramsay, Ron wrote:
>I would argue

This likely is a pointless argument except to point out that
the terminology used may be confusing to some and hence
likely should be clarified.

I agree with Steven that the ";binary" option should be
described a "BER encoding" and not a "binary encoding".

I maintain my position that no mention of the binary
attribute type syntax should be added to RFC 2251.