Subject: Protocol Information Syntax

From: "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:15:22 +1100

RFC 2252 defines a protocolInformationMatch matching rule that
references an undefined Protocol Information syntax. RFC 2256
defines a protocolInformation attribute that uses
protocolInformationMatch. Nothing else seems to depend on
protocolInformation so I propose removing all mention of
the syntax and matching rule from the syntaxes I-D, and for
Kathy to remove the attribute from the user schema I-D.

Any objections ?

Regards,
Steven

---

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:07:59 -0500

Hi Steven!

The ProtocolInformation production is in X.520:

	ProtocolInformation	::=	SEQUENCE {
	nAddress		OCTET STRING,
	profiles		SET OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER }
Refs:  5.9, 6.2.12, Annex A

Thanks,
Kathy

---

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:16:48 -0500

Hi All!

Although the protocolInformation attribute is not used in any of the
object classes in RFC 2256 or X.521, it is used in the MHS standards. 
My client uses the MHS object classes.  Also, they are used by NATO. 
These directories use LDAP and need the support of the RFCs for their
requirements.  So, I would not like to see the attribute, matching rule,
and syntax removed.

Thanks,
Kathy Dally

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:34:54 -0800 (PST)

I believe that Steven's reason for bringing up this issue is that fixing
up this incompleteness in 2252's successor would require adding the
Protocol Information syntax that does not appear in 2252, and we have set
in this WG a policy of not adding new items to our core documents.  If we
remove these items from the ldapbis documents, and your clients need these
them specified in an RFC, a separate RFC can be written to do this.
This is our approach with the X.509-related elements.

 - RL "Bob"

---

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:19:48 -0500

Hi Bob!

RFCs 2252 and 2256 and I-Ds syntaxes and user-schema refer to X.520,
where the ProtocolInformation production is specified.  Another example
of a syntax where the reader has to go to X.520 for the details is
Directory String.  So, I think we are covered on the "adding new
material" question.  

Thanks,
Kathy

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:38:31 -0800

At 03:19 PM 12/9/2002, Kathy Dally wrote:
>where the ProtocolInformation production is specified.

X.520 defines the ProtocolInformation ASN.1 data type, but not
how to encode that data type in LDAP.  If the specification
of the LDAP-specific encoding form is absent from the existing
"core", we should avoid adding it to the revised "core".

>Another example
>Directory String.

RFC 2252 provided a LDAP native string encoding for Directory
String and incorporated the ASN.1 by reference.  Nothing "new"
with Directory String.

>So, I think we are covered on the "adding new material" question.  

The "new" in the ProtocolInformation case is addition of
LDAP native string encoding.

Kurt

---

From: "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:01:35 +1100

Kathy,

Kathy Dally wrote:
> requirements.

The LDAP-specific encoding for the Protocol Information syntax is
not defined in RFC 2252 or RFC 2256. Out of curiousity, what are these
servers and clients using as the LDAP-specific encoding ? Or are they
just using protocolInformation;binary ?

Regards,
Steven