|
I like the notion of adding support for a lower bound, but anything done
to the existing oidlen will probably break existing
implementations. >>> "Mark Hinckley" <MHINCKLEY@novell.com> 11/15/00 12:21:41 PM >>> RFC 2252 lists 57 syntaxes in the table in 4.3.2. = It proceeds to give descriptions of varying detail for 32 of those = syntaxes in section 6. Should the other 25 syntaxes be given descriptions or = be removed from the table, or just left alone? Should any new syntaxes be added? Case Ignore = String and Case Exact String come to mind. The last paragraph of section 4.3.2 (after the = table) discusses the optional upper bound field to be added to an instance = of the syntax usage. Would it be useful to add an = optional lower bound value also. For example, it could be = written as "1.3.6.4.1.1466.0{ll..uu}, where = 'll' refers to the optional lower bound, and 'uu' refers to the optional upper bound. If = only one value is present, it would refer to the upper bound. Thought? Mark |