RE: Syntax Survey Version 2

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

At 05:23 PM 3/28/01 +1000, Steven Legg wrote:
>The Binary syntax seems to be used in RFC 2798 as a catch-all
>for attributes with a definite ASN.1 syntax but no LDAP string
>encoding. Used in this way, labelling an attribute definition
>with the Binary syntax is really only saying that the attribute
>has to be requested and returned using the ;binary attribute option.

Right.  I think the Binary syntax needs to be clarified
that it has no LDAP string encoding and should be transferred
using the ;binary (or other) transfer option.

>It otherwise doesn't convey any useful information about the
>syntax. Clients just have to know what the attributes are used for.
>
>I think RFC 2798 should have defined two new LDAP
>syntaxes instead of using the Binary syntax.

Yes.