Re: Incomplete Syntaxes Referenced by RFC 2252

[Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@sun.com>]

Steven Legg wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Here is a survey of the attribute syntaxes listed in the table in Section
> 4.3.2 of RFC 2252, in syntax OID order. A fair number of syntaxes are only
> defined in an expired Internet draft. If anyone has corrections,
> clarifications, or better references, send them to me. I'll maintain the
> list and post revisions.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>             OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54
>   RFC 2252 NAME: LDAP Syntax Description
> STRING ENCODING: Section 4.3.3, RFC 2252
>      ASN.1 TYPE: None
>     CONFORMANCE: (implied MUST, ldapSyntaxes is a MUST?)
> 
> To legitimize the use of objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch as the equality
> matching rule for the ldapSyntaxes attribute I suggest this ASN.1 in the
> successor to RFC 2252 (plus the commented out things while we're about it
> ?):

As a new feature?  I don't think there are two independent implementations of
RFC 2252's LDAP Syntax Description which have an OBSOLETE field.



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>             OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.56
>   RFC 2252 NAME: LDAP Schema Definition
> STRING ENCODING: Appendix A.2, RFC 2927
>      ASN.1 TYPE: None
>     CONFORMANCE: unspecified
> 
> I suggest the following ASN.1 for this syntax:
> 
>     LDAPSchemaDefinition ::= SEQUENCE {
>         identifier      OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
>         name            SET OF DirectoryString { ub-schema } OPTIONAL,
>         obsolete        BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
>         imports         SET OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER OPTIONAL,
>                 classes         SET OF OBJECT-CLASS.&id OPTIONAL,
>                 attributes      SET OF ATTRIBUTE.&id OPTIONAL,
>         matching-rules  SET OF MATCHING-RULE.&id OPTIONAL,
>                 syntaxes        SET OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER
>     }

ASN.1 purists would be unhappy that there are SET OF x OPTIONAL elements in
series which could not be resolved.  And doesn't a SET OF allow for zero 
elements?

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>             OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.57
>   RFC 2252 NAME: LDAP Schema Description
> STRING ENCODING: unspecified
>      ASN.1 TYPE: unspecified
>     CONFORMANCE: unspecified
> 
> I couldn't find any information on this syntax.

Wasn't published in RFC 2927.  Should be removed from the spec as there are
no implementations.

Mark Wahl
Sun Microsystems Inc.