Re: clarification: ;binary

[John_Payne@motorcity2.lotus.com]

O.K. I will bite.

I agree that the RFC 2252 section 4.3 requires clarification.  The text is way
open to misinterpretations and interoperability problems because of text like
"to the greatest extent possible" and "string encoding".

Maybe it's a hang up from LDAP V2 but when I see "string encoding" I
automaticaly think of something like base-64 etc. and further more the wording
sort of strongly encourages printable strings.  I agree it doesn't state that it
must be a printable string but it seems to me that the implication is that
internaly it can be treated using 'conventional' string operations such as
strcpy.  To me it seems to imply that if you can't handle the value as a
"string" then it should be flagged with the ";binary" option.

I would suggest thet "string encoding" be replaced by "Directory String" and the
ambiguity would pretty much go away.