RE: Incomplete Syntaxes Referenced by RFC 2252

["Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>]

Kurt,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
> Sent: Friday, 16 February 2001 11:51
> To: steven.legg@adacel.com.au
> Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: Re: Incomplete Syntaxes Referenced by RFC 2252
> 
> 
> At 11:11 AM 2/16/01 +1100, Steven Legg wrote:
> >Is there any consensus on what is to be done about the 
> syntaxes referenced
> >by the table in Section 4.3.2 RFC 2252, but not otherwise defined ?
> 
> There might be... but not enough to gauge the consensus (or 
> lack thereof)
> of the WG.
> 
> >Some syntaxes, like Delivery Method, have definitions in 
> earlier LDAP RFCs,
> >which can presumably be incorporated into RFC 2252bis, but 
> for some syntaxes
> >the only definitions for the string encoding I can find come 
> from the long
> >expired draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-attributes-03.txt .
> 
> The Delivery Method syntax is defined in RFC 2256.

Oops! Don't know how I missed that. It just demonstrates the importance
of having all the syntaxes in the one document. The DL Submit Permission
syntax is the sort of example I should have referenced.

> 
> >Are these definitions
> >going to be tidied up and used, or will the syntaxes for 
> these definitions
> >be
> >revised to always be transferred as ";binary" ?
> 
> It's likely that the each syntax will have to be reviewed to
> sure that the specification is complete, has multiple independently
> developed interoperable implementations, and that it is otherwise
> suitable for publication as part of the LDAPv3 Draft Standard.

Fair enough, who's going to do the review, how and when ? The missing
definitions should at least be pasted into one or other of the revised
core document drafts so we know what we're dealing with.

Regards,
Steven

> 
> Kurt
> 
>