Re: No-op LDAP ;binary option

[Jeff Jacoby <jjacoby@rsasecurity.com>]

Christopher Oliva wrote:
> 
> David, I agree with the summary of the problem you've provided below ..
> in terms of basic ldapv3 interoperability, ;binary has been the number 1
> problem I've encountered.
> 
> I prefer a solution that defines "userCertificate;binary" and
> "userCertificate" to have the same meaning .. that is, a request for
> userCertificate will return the same binary encoded value as a request
> for userCertificate;binary (and the attribute description returned will
> be userCertificate;binary if userCertificate;binary was requested).
> 
> Chris.

I think of this is the Tomato Solution:

  You say you want a to-MAH-to?  I'll give you this red juicy thing that 
  goes well on salads...and we'll both call it a to-MAH-to.

  Oh, you say you'd prefer a to-MAY-to?  Then I'll give you this red
  juicy thing that goes well on salads...and we'll both call it a
to-MAY-to.

:)

Seriously,  I agree with the above proposal.

Jeff