[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: syntaxes-09 notes
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 10:28 PM 2/6/2005, Steven Legg wrote:
>>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>>3.3.11. Facsimile Telephone Number
>>> (..)
>>>It would be nice if a description (maybe ABNF) of this syntax is added,
>>>similar to the ABNF of GeneralizedTime. (Or maybe put it under
>>>telephoneNumber and refer to that.)
> (...)
> Second, I don't think it appropriate to provide an ABNF here.
OK...
> The E.123 format is best considered a free format. While it
> can certainly be argued that a more precise format would be
> better, it is not generally within our scope to update X.500
> syntaxes (or to introduce new syntaxes).
That's fine by me.
However, you rejected a complaint that OpenLDAP did not accept
"---" as a phone number. Have you changed your mind, or do I
misunderstand what you mean by free format?
Here:
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200409/msg00099.html
>From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
>Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:45:54 -0700
>
>At 04:24 PM 9/5/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>>At 02:26 PM 9/5/2004, vadim wrote:
>>>> 1) 2.2.15 does not accept value "---" of attribute
>>>> telephoneNumber, (...)
>>>
>>> "---" is not a telephone number. It is proper for a LDAP server
>>> to disallow the addition of such garbage.
>>
>> Not as far as I can tell. At least, it's valid according to the
>> telephone number syntax in draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-08.txt.
>
> Maybe the I-D is not as clear as it could be.
>
> Values of this syntax represent telephone numbers using the E.123
> format encoded in a printable string. The printable string "---"
> simply doesn't represent a telephone number. (Maybe it represents
> "no telephone number", but that's not a telephone number.)
--
Hallvard