Re: syntax ID and ;binary

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

> Christopher Oliva wrote:
> 
> I think we need to change the usage of ;binary with respect to
> Certificate, Certificate List and Certificate Pair.
> 
> I realize there is talk of moving the definition of these syntaxes out
> of the syntax ID and into a PKIX ID - I think these changes should be
> reflected in the syntax ID until that move is performed.
> 
> Basically, I'd like to make use of ";binary" within the attribute
> description optional for these syntaxes. The ID should state that
> these values are transferred as binary encode BER values by default
> and therefore the ";binary" option is not necessary in protocol client
> and server messages. However, the ";binary" option can be included in
> attribute descriptions within the protocol - a server and client MUST
> treat an attribute description with and without ";binary" as identical
> for these syntaxes. For example, "userCertificate" and
> "userCertificate;binary" would refer to the exact same set of values
> that would be encoded the same for protocol transfer.

I disagree with your proposal.  Some (many?) existing LDAPv3
implementations would fail to meet the revised specification.  What
problem are you trying to solve by making this change?

-- 
Mark Smith
Directory Product Development / Netscape Communications Corp.
My words are my own, not my employer's.            Got LDAP?