RE: AttributeTypeValue and binary

["Jim Sermersheim" <JIMSE@novell.com>]

Yes, we should say "BER encoding" there. That would help push wandering minds in the right direction.

Jim

>>> "Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au> 1/24/01 7:40:55 PM >>>

Jim,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
> Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 11:52
> To: mcs@netscape.com 
> Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org; Kurt@OpenLDAP.org 
> Subject: Re: AttributeTypeValue and binary
> 
> 
> My suggested change is the result of trying to keep the 
> existing wording intact as much as possible, and also not 
> address any issues other than the wrapper confusion. Another 
> wordy possibility is:
> 
> A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING containing 
> an encoding of the value syntax of the companion attribute 
> type. When the syntax of an attribute type defines a string 
> encoding, that encoding is used unless an option is present 
> in the companion AttributeDescription which overrides the 
> string-based encoding. For example, if the "binary" option is 
> present, the value will be the binary encoding of the value.

Can we say "BER encoding" instead of "binary encoding" ? The latter is
likely to cause confusion with arbitrary binary data, which should of
course be put in an attribute with Octet String syntax.

Regards,
Steven