Subject: FWD: ;binary a/b design teams' summary / recommendation review

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:08:51 -0400

Please take any discussion of this topic to the LDAPbis mail list.  I post 
it here to ensure that everyone who cares about this issue is aware it.

Russ

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: ;binary a/b design teams' summary / recommendation review

Two design teams were formed to consider how to clarify the specification of
the ;binary (and other) transfer option features in the LDAP "core"
technical specification.
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200204/msg00073.html

This message provides a brief summary of the teams discussions, a combined
recommendation, and initiates a 2-week WG discussion period to determine
whether the WG consensus supports adopting the teams' recommendation.  Both
design teams are now disbanded.

While each team mission was to produce alternative text, both teams worked
together to ensure each understood the issues and to determine the areas of
contention.  One key area was the semantics of all user attribute search
requests. One camp (a cross section of both teams), basically, thought that
a server should choose between returning either the native encoding (if
defined and supported) and the binary (if supported) encoding.  One camp
thought that a server should only return values in their native encoding (to
avoid interoperability caused by a server choice).  After much debate, it
was found that both approaches are problematic.  In short, the first
approach is problematic in that imperatives required to ensure
interoperability caused by the server choice would limit the general
usefulness of all user attribute search requests. The second approach is
problematic because it requires redefinition of all user attributes requests
in a manner inconsistent with the existing technical specification.

It was clear that the camps were deadlocked and that it
would be difficult for either camp to garner WG consensus.

Removal of the ;binary feature (and all mention of transfer
options) was then discussed.  The teams concluded that,
given the known interoperability problems with ;binary, limitations of the
;binary features, and the unsuitability of proposed revisions of its
technical specification, the ;binary feature (and all mention of transfer
options) should be removed from the technical specification.

The teams recognized that removal of the ;binary feature
would raise some backwards compatibility issues and is an
area which subsequent work may be appropriate to pursue.

The WG is to consider the teams' proposal to remove ;binary feature (and all
mention of transfer options).  A two-week comment period is hereby initiated
on this proposal ending 24 May 2002.  Based upon your comments, the WG
chairs will gauge WG consensus and take appropriate actions.

-- LDAPbis WG chairs