Re: AttributeTypeValue and binary

[Ludovic Poitou <ludovic.poitou@france.sun.com>]

This sounds good to me.
Just my 2 Euro cents inlined below. ;-)

Ludovic.


"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

> RFC 2251, 4.1.6:
>    A field of type AttributeValue takes on as its value either a string
>    encoding of a AttributeValue data type, or an OCTET STRING containing
>    an encoded binary value, depending on whether the "binary" option is
>    present in the companion AttributeDescription to this AttributeValue.
>         AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING
>
> This wording can be interpreted as either:
>    A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING which contains
>    either a string encoding of a AttributeValue data type or an
>    binary encoded value depending on whether the "binary" option is
>    present in the companion AttributeDescription to this AttributeValue.
>
> or:
>    A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING which contains
>    either a string encoding of a AttributeValue data type or an
>    OCTET STRING containing an binary encoded value depending on

should be  : ...containing a binary encoded value...

>
>    whether the "binary" option is present in the companion
>    AttributeDescription to this AttributeValue.
>
> RFC 2252, 4.3.1 provides clarification that the correct interpretation
> is the former.  I think RFC 2251 should be clarified to remove any
> doubt.
>
> Actually, I suggest that the description of the "binary" transfer
> option be described completely within (and only within) RFC 2251
> and that "binary" syntax be described within RFC 2252.
>
> Also as previously noted on the LDAPext mailing list (see archives
> for discussion), "binary" transfer of values of "binary" syntax
> makes little sense and likely should be disallowed.
>
> Comments?

--
Ludovic Poitou
Sun Microsystems Inc.
iPlanet E-Commerce Solutions - Directory Group - Grenoble - France