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

Re: Irrelevant empty IA5String (was: vacation message & schema design)

To: John McMeeking <jmcmeek@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Irrelevant empty IA5String (was: vacation message & schema design)
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:51:28 +0100
Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <OFCC1D6260.2FA32353-ON86256F4A.005CF53A-86256F4A.00601985@us.ibm.com>
References: <OFCC1D6260.2FA32353-ON86256F4A.005CF53A-86256F4A.00601985@us.ibm.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913

John McMeeking wrote:

Hallvard,
If it makes you feel any better...


So my summary of this thread is (please correct me if I am wrong): There
doesn't seem to be interoperability around the use of empty IA5 strings.

If you agree on that there is only one way to proceed: disallow the use
of empty IA5 strings. We had a similar discussion about ;binary some
time ago with a similar outcome.

This is the ldapbis-wg. The purpouse of this group is to shepheard
ldapv3 to draft standard.

	MVH leifj

References:
- Re: Irrelevant empty IA5String (was: vacation message & schema design)
  - From: John McMeeking <jmcmeek@us.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [filter] interpretting presence verses substring with whitespace
Next by Date: Re: reframing the Empty IA5 string discussion
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread