Jim Sermersheim wrote:
I think a statement like you suggest that references section 5.1 would be a reasonable thing to add to the protocol document. I think it will do more harm than good to allow control authors to use different encoding approaches (but if someone can come up with a real world example where following 5.1 is unacceptable in a control, I will change my mind). I think current practice is to follow 5.1, but we just don't have that requirement written down anywhere.I'd love to do this, but the fact is, values of controls and extended operations are OCTET STRING types. It's entirely up to the control or extended operation specification to define the format of the octets (4.1.11 and 4.12). I believe it would be inappropriate to say anything other than "if the control (or extended operation) specification defines the format of the control value using ASN.1, it SHOULD also specify that encoding be in accordance with the rules in 5.1". Even that, I feel is stretching things a bit. Otherwise the protocol begins to take on aspects of an extension guide.
-Mark
_______________________________________________ Ldapext mailing list Ldapext@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext