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

Re: and/or (1..MAX) constraint


Hallvard,

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: 
What happened to this?

I've been expecting someone to post an explanation of why the grammar
change is a problem for the T/F filter spec.  Did I miss it, or did the
someone decide it was a false alarm?


The T/F filter spec removes the size constraint. If the constraint were
not explicit in the ASN.1 then the T/F filter spec would only need to update
the prose of the protocols draft. With the constraint explicit in the ASN.1
the T/F filter spec will need to formally update the ASN.1 as well.
No big deal. Kurt, as the author of the T/F filter spec, does not appear to
be concerned by the minor extra work.

Regards,
Steven


At 07 Nov 2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote:

I've re-added these, and will wait for WG consensus to remove them.


"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 10/29/04 2:23:39 PM >>> 

As chair, I note that the WG did specifically discussed adding
these constraints to the revised ASN.1 module, (...)

It seems however that some have raised "new" concerns supporting
dropping the SIZE (1..MAX) constraints, however, it not quite
clear what that concern is. Hence, I suggest that those who
support dropping these constraints based upon "new" concerns
detail those concerns to the WG and why it is necessary (or
appropriate) to drop these constraints. We'll discuss the "new"
concerns and see if consensus now clearly supports dropping
these constraints. In absence of a clear consensus to drop the
constraints, the chairs will direct the Editor to include
these constraints.

At 11:31 PM 10/28/2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote:


This [no SIZE constraint] is the way it was in RFC 2251.  At some
point, [protocol] added the SIZE (1..MAX) to the ASN.1 to make it
consistent with the text. It was then found that this prevents
Kurt's T/F filter spec from working without breaking protocol, so
we removed the ASN.1 grammar.