Subject: Re: ;binary design teams

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:43:29 -0600

I fall into team A except the case where a search attrs list requests
all user attributes. I'd be glad to help with some text. I believe the
case for allowing future LDAP-specific encodings for syntaxes missing
them is stronger than the case for a syntax's LDAP-specific encoding
being equal to its binary encoding when not specified.

Jim

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]> 04/19/02 09:58AM >>>
Two design teams have been formed to offer replacement text
for Section 4.1.5 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt to the
WG.  A leader for each team has been chosen by the WG chairs from
the team members.  This leader will serve as editor of the
replacement text.  The design teams are expected to be
short-lived (2-4 weeks).

Design Team A will offer replacement text consistent with the
position that ;binary must be used to indicate the transfer
of binary encoded values.
	Mark Smith (Lead), Steven Legg, David Chadwick

Design Team B will offer replacement text consistent with the
position that the use of ;binary is not necessary to indicate
the transfer of binary encoded values.
	David Chadwick (Lead), Chris Oliva, Tim Hahn

Additionally, chairs will participate in design team discussions.

Kurt, LDAPbis co-chair

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:43:06 -0700

>being equal to its binary encoding when not specified.

Jim has been added to design team A.

Kurt