[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: interoperability of ;binary

At 12:18 AM 4/3/01 -0600, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>Supposing that we do away with ;binary, would that imply that there must be string encodings for all syntaxes?

Yes.  Some might be BER/DER string encodings as was done
in LDAPv2 for userCertificates (RFC2559).

>I'd personaly rather make a distinction between subtyping and non-subtyping options so we can leave the door open for tranfer options.

Making a distinction in RFC2251bis scares me.  One has to
go down the path of whether there multiple kinds of subtyping
and non-subtyping options.  That is direct vs non-direct
subtyping options.  Or, transfer options which act like
subtyping options in some contexts but not in others.  We
end up having to redesign the feature, hence the protocol.
It's a slippery slope that I rather not step down into.

However, I am also quite willing to consider other options...
I'll even offer another one myself:

Replace:
  An AttributeDescription with one or more options is
  treated as a subtype of the attribute type without
  any options.

with:
  The relationship between an AttributeDescription with
  one or more options with an AttributeDescription with
  the same or related attribute type and a subset of the
  same options is not defined in general.  Such semantics
  are defined on an option by option basis.

and update ;binary (and ;lang-*) as approrpiate.

Another approach would be to do both.  That is, make the
replacement, remove ;binary to a separate document (an
extension).  This would keep the "redesign" out of LDAPbis.

Kurt