[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-12.txt
- To: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>
- Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-12.txt
- From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:39:49 +0100
- Cc: IETF ldapbis WG <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411250351270.3354@perp.cac.washington.edu>
- References: <200410262052.QAA18690@ietf.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411250351270.3354@perp.cac.washington.edu>
RL 'Bob' Morgan writes:
> This document has been recommended to the IESG for consideration as a
> Proposed Standard. Note that comments will be solicited during
> IETF-wide last call also.
This comment was outstanding, though it's not particularly important.
Not sure if anyone is interested; the only response was a request for
clarification from Ron.
From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:24:42 +0100
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: ABNF of numericoid
I've discovered that I've lost this old thread again.
I had the impression that we landed on using the exact syntax for
numericoid, but maybe I confused the issue too much:-(
Anyway, [bcp64] and [models] say:
numericoid = number 1*( DOT number )
I wonder if we could change that to Kurt's suggestion (3) in the old
thread, so the syntax expresses exactly which values are valid:
numericoid = %x30-31 DOT [ %x31-33 ] DIGIT *( DOT number )
/ %x32 1*( DOT number )
; Starts with 0-1.0-39 or 2.number
BTW, I think I was not the only one who had the misconception that the
BER encoding's first component (40 * value1 + value2) can be only 1
octet, and therefore that value2 in the syntax was not unlimited even
with value1 = 2. Where did others get that idea from? I got it from
RSA's "A Layman's Guide to a Subset of ASN.1, BER, and DER". On the
Asn1 mailinglist, I was told guide has a number of errors.
--
Hallvard