Re: ;binary transfer of the binary syntax

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 07:02 AM 9/18/00 -0400, hahnt@us.ibm.com wrote:
>My preference is that ";binary" is NOT required to be sent (nor should it be expected).

I tend to agree.  However, compatibility with inetOrgPerson might
be an issue...

>I would prefer to see "language" along the lines of: 

language tags are an extension, hence out of scope of this forum.

>whatever is sent in on the request is what will be returned (like attribute type alias names).

What are alias names?  Each attribute type has an OID and one or
more alternative names.  The alternative names can be viewed
as "aliases" for the OID.  The specification states no requirement
for any particular alternative name to be favored.  The implementation
is free to return the attribute using any of these names regardless
of how the attribute was requested.  Some servers might favor the
requested name, others might do favor the first or the last, others
might choose one at random.  It really doesn't matter which is
returned as the client should know that they are all equivalent.

>If the specific attribute type name is not specified, then the "no description" form is returned.  Thus, if 
>
>foo 
>
>is requested,  the response will contain 
>
>foo 

I disagree.  If you request foo (implicitly or explicitly) you
should get in return foo and all subtypes of foo.  foo;bar
is a subtype of foo and hence should be returned.

It would be counter to RFC2252 if a request for
"userCertficate" returned "userCertificate" as RFC2252
says "values in this (certificate) syntax MUST only be
transferred using the binary encoding."

I am suggesting the description of the binary syntax say
either:
        values of this syntax MUST only be transferred using
        the ;binary transfer mechanism described above
or
        values of this syntax MUST NOT be transferred using
        the ;binary transfer mechanism described above

What name is used to refer to the attribute type is a
separate issue.

Kurt