RE: Binary Syntax (consensus confirmation)

["Ramsay, Ron" <Ron.Ramsay@ca.com>]

I find this a tad extraordinary.

RFC 2252 Section 6.2 Binary:

Values in this syntax are encoded as described in section 4.3.1.

4.3.1 describes the binary transfer of values, therefore tying ;binary to
the binary syntax.

Values encoded in the Binary syntax are encoded in BER. For those of us
working with X.500, we know that all values are encoded in BER and many of
them have a suitable syntax (X.520). For those that don't have a defined
syntax, the actual syntax must surely be ANY.

How anyone felt any justification to use binary to mean octet string leaves
me breathless!

I know the IETF members complain about the cost of the standards and so try
and play it by ear, but the standard is the standard. We are not talking
whois or ph here.

Unhappily,

Ron.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2001 14:33
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Binary Syntax (consensus confirmation)


The definition of the binary syntax [RFC2252] (not to be confused
with the ;binary transfer option) was discussed during the LDAPbis
session at IETF#52.

RFC 2252 failed to provide an ASN.1 data definition for the
binary syntax.  There are at least two different interpretations:
	a) OCTET STRING constrained to a BER-encoded data
	b) ANY
Implementations of both exist in the wild, they do not
interoperate when ;binary is used.

In summary, the proponents of a) argue that it is more useful
as servers tend to preserve values (but not representations)
while proponents of b) argue that it is more consistent with the
literal reading of RFC 2252.  A poll of the room appeared to
favored a) over b), the chairs were not conformable in declaring
consensus (even rough).

The chair suggested that the specification for the binary syntax
be removed and the reasons why (ambiguous definition) be detailed
in the document's informative appendix detailing changes since
RFC 2252.  A poll of the room indicated strong consensus for this
approach.

Unless there is significant objection voiced from the WG, it shall
be assumed the WG consensus is to implement this approach.

Regards, Kurt