RE: Incomplete Syntaxes Referenced by RFC 2252

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 12:32 PM 2/16/01 +1100, Steven Legg wrote:
>> >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.

Well, it just needs to get done (in a manner consistent with WG
guidelines).

I suggest a table be prepared that for each syntax provides:
        1) normative reference for ASN.1 type (if one)
                (if external, any RFC describing the specification)
        2) normative reference for string representation (if one)
                (if external, any RFC describing the specification)
        3) strongest imperative level applicable (MUST, SHOULD, MAY)

Either the editor or another volunteer can prepare the table.  The who
here depends more on who has the time to put this together.  The sooner,
the better.  This table would then be augmented by a quick implementation
survey.

I suspect we'll make determination for most syntaxes quickly.  However,
there will be some requiring more significant discussions.  The editor
need not wait for determination of all syntaxes before taking action
on any syntax where the WG has reach consensus on what's to be done.

Kurt