RE: RFC 2254bis

["Ramsay, Ron" <Ron.Ramsay@ca.com>]

Kurt,

I don't think it appropriate to allow ;binary in a filter. Filters should
only refer to the actual (conceptual) value of an attribute, not to a
conversion of this value.

If the actual value is binary, then (binary-attr=\04\02\78\78) would be
acceptable but WITHOUT the ;binary extension, that is,
(binary-attr;binary=\04\02\78\78) would be inappropriate.

Ron.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2000 4:40
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: RFC 2254bis


I would like to see the addition of a reference to
documents containing LDAP-specific Security Considerations
added to this I-D's Security Considerations section.
Something like:
  LDAP-specific security considerations are discussed in
  RFC 2251, RFC 2829, and RFC 2830.

I also suggest a few additional examples be added, including:
  (1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0;binary=\04\02\48\69)
           ;; assertion of a BER encoded value

  (cn:=value)
  (:1.2.3:=value)
           ;; other valid extensible matching assertions