[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Ignoring tagged elements in RFC 2251



>>>> Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@sun.com> 11/14/00 4:30:07 PM >>>
>
>> Basically I've moved "tags" to "tagged" before elements (only to clarify), and
>> changed SEQUENCE to PDU (because I think it really means any SEQUENCE, SET, or
>> CHOICE).

>> Does anyone see a problem with this?
>
>Yes.
>
>1. LDAP has no SET, only SET OF.
Right. 

>2. I don't think you mean to ignore a unrecognized tag in a CHOICE.
I was thinking of future versions allowing additional authentication choices, but your right, ignoring unknown choices here wouldn't be correct. The search filter is also a choice, and I suppose some kind of semantics could be assigned to the case where an unknown tag is present in a set following an and or or. I'll just ignore that possibility for now and move on.
 
>That is why I said SEQUENCE.

Aside from the SEQUENCE vs. SEQUENCE and CHOICE issue, does moving the word "tag" help or hinder?
 
Jim