Re: Syntax descriptions in RFC2252

[Kathy Dally <kdally@mitre.org>]

Hi!

Note that RFC 2256 defines seven syntaxes.  To my mind, the table should
be left alone, because it documents the Object Identifiers assigned to
all of the syntaxes. 

Kathy Dally


Mark Hinckley wrote:
> 
> 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