[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: syntaxes-09 notes
At 12:56 PM 3/6/2005, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>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?
E.123 a free format for representing a telephone number. I
argue that it is not a telephone number and, much like dates
like 31 February 2006, can be rejected by the implementation.
Kurt
>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