Re: [Syntaxes] Generalized Time inconsistent with ASN.1

[Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Michael Ströder writes:
>
>>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>
>>>I take it making the time zone optional is too big a change for ldapbis?
>>
>>user (sitting in Hongkong)
>>   --HTTP--> web gateway (Germany)
>>     --LDAP--> LDAP server (U.S.)
>>
>>Which "local" time should be displayed to the user?
>
> Time without timezone, I think.

And how should generalizedTimeOrderingMatch be implemented in this scenario?

>  What it means is the user's problem, if he uses it in such a context.

Sorry, does not make sense to me. Please leave it strictly as defined in 
RFC2252.

> However, time without timezone can be useful in genuinely local contexts.

How about allow garbage in, produce correct output?
A server implementor MAY decide to accept attribute values for 
GeneralizedTime without time zone. But the server MUST return the attribute 
value with time zone set, the attribute value massaged according to some 
local time zone configuration.

> For example, work hours here starts
> at 8:00 local time all year, but which timezone that is varies due to
> daylight savings time.

Can you imagine all the weird postings to mailing lists with people asking 
how that is supposed to work? We should try to avoid adding yet more blurred 
definitions like the "minimum upper bound" in attribute type declaration...

Ciao, Michael.