Subject: Re: WG consensus: remove ;binary

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:13:46 -0600

Another implication may be that there is no obvious room for a
transfer-encoding option. If the TS defines options as always having
subtyping behavior, any special tranfer encoding mechanism would
probably be in the form of a control.

>>> Mark Smith <[email-masked]> 05/29/02 05:08PM >>>
Mark Wahl wrote:
>>So with that said what is the transition plan for phasing it out of 
>>current products and will it just ignor a ;binary tag on an
LDAPsearch 
>>for instance. 
> 
> 
> It shouldn't be phased out of products as it is required for 
> interoperability, it just needs to be moved from one document (2252
revision)
> to another.  The part of the LDAP specs which defines certificate
attribute 
> handling will need to define the ;binary transfer option for use with
those 
> attributes.

I think we need to clarify the consequences of the LDAPbis WG's
decision 
to remove ;binary. My understanding is that the PKIX WG has no plans to

use ;binary for PKI attributes, which means over time ;binary will be 
entirely phased out (the main use for ;binary has been for PKI 
attributes). That means we do have a transition issue that must be 
addressed.

-- 
Mark Smith
AOL Strategic Business Solutions
My words are my own, not my employer's.

---
This message was sent via Netscape Messaging Server 6.0.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:57:12 -0700

>probably be in the form of a control.

I believe the "core" specification must allow for introduction
of other kinds of options, including the re-introduction transfer
options.

The consensus to remove ;binary (and mention of transfer options),
is not inconsistent with our previous consensus to clarify
that multiple kinds of options exist.

Kurt