|
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 10/24/04 2:52:57 AM >>>
>I don't want to unnecessarily preclude some >future use of a syntax descriptor in the protocol, >but I do think we do need to be clear that these >descriptors are not presently used in the protocol. > >I started to experiment with some [Models] edits >here and haven't found any way of saying syntaxes >can have descriptors in a way that is clear that >they are used (presently) in the protocol. I'm >thinking it best to leave introduction of syntax >descriptors (which seems like a new feature) to >an extension specification. I agree
>Another (lessor) problem with using descriptors >here is that many syntaxes are referred to by ASN.1 >data type names (e.g., OCTET STRING) which are not >valid descriptors. Yes, but they could (in the future be given valid 'descr' form descriptions (like octetString)
>So, at this point, I guess I have to say I now >prefer option 1 and dislike both 2 and 3. > >I note that Option 1 doesn't preclude a future >extension from introducing 'syntax descriptors', >but it does (and I think properly so) defers the >introduction to a future extension specification. I don't think harm will be introduced either way. I still favor 2, but it's not keeping me up at night.
<snip> Jim
|