Re: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-05.txt

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

At 07:37 AM 7/18/2001, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 05/11/01 02:18PM >>>
>
>>I note that RFC 2253's ABNF required '=' (as well as non-leading '#')
>>to be escaped but RFC 2253's Section 2 clearly allows '=' (as well
>>as non-leading '#') to used unescaped.  In this I-D, the ABNF was
>>made consistent with Section 2 as this is the RECOMMENDED method
>>for generating DNs.  The alternative, requiring '=' (as well as
>>non-leading '#') to be escaped, would like have rendered many
>>existing implementations non-complaint.  It is noted that existing
>>implementations generally don't care of '=' (as well as non-leading
>>'#') are escaped or not.
>
>Do *all* existing implementations not care whether a non-leading # is escaped or not?

I'd hate to say *all*, but am under the impression that most don't
care as most are fairly liberal in what they accept.  That could be
a false impression.  I suggest we leave the I-D as is for now and
what we find in doing the Implementation Report.

>One nit about the # character, it is called an octothorpe in section 2.4 and a SHARP or sharp sign in other sections (specifically the BNF).

We clean that up as an editorial change.