Subject: RE: REVISED protocol review notes [LONG]

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:48:05 -0600

The current LDAPBis documents (well, at least the protocol document)
references the 2002 version of X.680
 
Jim

>>> "Ramsay, Ron" <[email-masked]> 10/22/03 7:27:18 PM >>>

I don't know what version of ASN.1 LDAPv3 should require. For X.500
it's the 1993 version, isn't it? But I don't remember any statement
about ASN.1. I wouldn't like the ASN.1 issue to create a moving target.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 01:30
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: REVISED protocol review notes [LONG]

>>> Steven Legg <[email-masked]> 10/22/03 1:17:00 AM >>>
>Yes, but you could also do this:
>
>PartialAttribute ::= SEQUENCE {
>type AttributeDescription,
>vals SET OF AttributeValue }
>
>Attribute ::= PartialAttribute(WITH COMPONENTS {..., vals
(SIZE(1..MAX))})

Wow. This looks cool... but having never seen such a thing, I had to do
a double take. What do others think about using this kind of
definition?

>You could also in-line the right hand side of the Attribute
assignment
>statement everywhere Attribute is needed and then rename
PartialAttribute
>to just Attribute.

True, it's only used in one place right now (AttributeList)

>By the way, are you intending to put identifiers into each of
>the SET OF and SEQUENCE OF notations ? I so, do you want me to
>make some appropriate suggestions ?

I think so, but I wanted to ping the list one more time about this
before deciding.
 
Jim

---

From: John McMeeking <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:24:59 -0500

I guess we all really ought to get up to date on ASN.1.  And I can see
where this ASN.1 feature could be pretty useful, particularly for refining
a more complex (or at least longer) definition.

In this particular case, I don't the advantage over separate definitions.
It isn't any shorter.  And it's already been suggested that it be
accompanied by further explanation since it isn't obvious to those readers
that are not up to date.

John  McMeeking

                      "Jim Sermersheim"                                                                                
                      <[email-masked]>          To:       <[email-masked]>                                
                      Sent by:                    cc:       <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>           
                      owner-ietf-ldapbis@O        Subject:  Re: REVISED protocol review notes [LONG]                   
                      penLDAP.org                                                                                      

                      10/22/2003 10:29 AM                                                                              

>Attribute ::= PartialAttribute(WITH COMPONENTS {..., vals (SIZE(1..MAX))})
Wow. This looks cool... but having never seen such a thing, I had to do a
double take. What do others think about using this kind of definition?

>You could also in-line the right hand side of the Attribute assignment
>statement everywhere Attribute is needed and then rename PartialAttribute
>to just Attribute.

>make some appropriate suggestions ?
I think so, but I wanted to ping the list one more time about this before
deciding.

Jim