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

Re: OID attribute values with unknown names


Kurt,

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: 
At 12:21 AM 5/26/2004, Steven Legg wrote:

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:

In reading [Syntaxes] again, I am a bit concerned
that it describes syntaxes in terms of the LDAP
string encoding


I have been very careful in making a distinction between the abstract syntax
and the LDAP string encoding in the syntaxes draft.



For your information, the one instance initiated my bit of concern
was Directory String.
   A value of the Directory String syntax is a string of one or more
   arbitrary characters from the Universal Character Set (UCS) [UCS].

The abstract syntax is actually a sequence of arbitrary characters,
commonly of UCS but could be of T.61 or other character sets.  The
restriction to UCS is peculiarity of the LDAP string encoding, not
of the abstract syntax.


Since we talk about transliterating T.61 to UCS to do matching in the
directory (LDAP and X.500), and since XER, RXER and GSER all depend on
a notion of equivalence between T.61 characters and UCS characters,
one could almost make the case that the different ASN.1 string types
are just different ways to encode UCS characters :-) .


However, after toying around with some alternative wordings, I
couldn't come up with anything better.


Me neither. I decided that being pedantic on this wouldn't be
helpful to the reader since the choice of character encoding carries
no semantic weight in LDAP or X.500, and most LDAP users will never see
that it makes any difference.

> So I'm fine with letting
this be. 

Okay.

Regards,
Steven