Subject: RE: Teletex Terminal Identifier in draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-01

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:11:02 -0700

Using a hexidecimal string would be nice, but there are existing
implementations (well, one at least) that treat an octetstring as Kathy
described (octetstring = *OCTET   , where OCTET  =  %x00-FF).

Actually, there are pros and cons for doing it either way.

Jim

>>> "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]> 02/28/02 09:10PM >>>

Jim,

Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> This syntax has the encoding:
> teletex-id = ttx-term  0*("$" ttx-param)
> where ttx-param ends in an octetstring.
> 
> Some escapment policy must be noted regarding the occurance of %0x24
in
> the octetstring (due to the $ delimiter). It probably would have
been
> easier if ttx-param was defined as:
> ttx-param  = ttx-key ":" ttx-value-len ":" ttx-value
> 
> but I think we're beyond going back and changing it.

The <octetstring> rule isn't actually defined anywhere so we're
free to define it to be something sensible. I suggest we make
it a hexadecimal string.

Note that the 4th edition of X.500 has deprecated this syntax.
The X.500 working group has even gone to the extent of removing
the teletexTerminalIdentifier attribute from every object class
that used to reference it. An option for us is to throw it out too.

Regards,
Steven

---

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:10:46 -0500

Hi Jim!

I'm a little confused.  A hexidecimal string is not necessarily
octet-aligned.  So, what's the problem with the <octetstring>
definition?

Thanks,
Kathy