RE: DTCs against X.520 / 9594-6

["Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>]

Hoyt,

Hoyt L. Kesterson II wrote:
> Although I had put the DTCs against X.520 / 9594-8 up on the
> server, I neglected to announce them. The ballots on the DTCs
> close 27 February.
>
> The DTCs clarify the handling of an attribute with a
> NamedBitList syntax and add the definition of a matching rule
> for facsimile number. There are two DTCs - one against the
> 3rd edition, the other against the 4th.

With regard to the matching rule for facsimile number, would it
not be more appropriate for the assertion syntax for
facsimileNumberMatch (and likewise for telephoneNumberMatch) to
be TelephoneNumber rather than PrintableString ?

This would align better with LDAP where the assertion syntax for
telephoneNumberMatch is the same as the attribute syntax for
telephoneNumber (i.e. 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50, corresponding
to the TelephoneNumber ASN.1 type). The Printable String syntax
in LDAP is distinctly separate and has the identifier
1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44.

Regards,
Steven

>
> They can be found on the server in Word and PDF formats at
>
ftp://ftp.bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/DefectResolution/DraftTechnicalCorrigend
a/closing26Feb2002/6N12080X.520DTC-4%283rd%29.doc

ftp://ftp.bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/DefectResolution/DraftTechnicalCorrigend
a/closing26Feb2002/6N12080X.520DTC-4%283rd%29.pdf

ftp://ftp.bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/DefectResolution/DraftTechnicalCorrigend
a/closing26Feb2002/6N12081X.520DTC-3%284th%29.doc

ftp://ftp.bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/DefectResolution/DraftTechnicalCorrigend
a/closing26Feb2002/6N12081X.520DTC-3%284th%29.pdf

The DTCs correct defect reports 287 and 288. They can be found at

ftp://ftp.bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/DefectResolution/DefectReports/AllDefect
Reports/DR_287.pdf

ftp://ftp.bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/DefectResolution/DefectReports/AllDefect
Reports/DR_288.pdf

   hoyt