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

Re: ;binary

At 12:06 PM 2002-02-25, Michael Ströder wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>>
>> At 08:30 AM 2002-02-25, Christopher Oliva wrote:
>> >
>> > My argument here is that the current ldapv3 RFCs do not
>> > really say one way or another what should happen.
>>
>> It doesn't need to.  The specification requires the client to
>> request the userCertificate attribute using ;binary.  If the
>> client fails this mandate, then the behavior it gets is undefined.
>> [..]
>>Clients are expected to request the userCertificate attribute
>>using ;binary.   Clients which fail to follow the specification
>>will not interoperate with all compliant servers.
>
>Sorry for jumping in that late.
>
>Hmm, now you're telling us that e.g. a generic client has to explicitly request all attributes it might handle additionally with transfer encoding?

I am saying clients are expected to request userCertificate
as userCertificate;binary and that if they don't they will
not interoperate with all existing compliant implementations.

The problem is that the specification only states that '*'
implies "all user attributes", it doesn't say anything
about transfer encoding.  Clearly we need to clarify the
handling of '*'.  See my suggestion in this area.