Re: Teletex Terminal Identifier indraft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-01

[Kathy Dally <kdally@mitre.org>]

Hi Jim!

I'm a little confused.  A hexidecimal string is not necessarily
octet-aligned.  So, what's the problem with the <octetstring>
definition?

Thanks,
Kathy


Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> 
> Using a hexidecimal string would be nice, but there are existing
> implementations (well, one at least) that treat an octetstring as Kathy
> described (octetstring = *OCTET   , where OCTET  =  %x00-FF).
> 
> Actually, there are pros and cons for doing it either way.
> 
> Jim
> 
> >>> "Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au> 02/28/02 09:10PM >>>
> 
> Jim,
> 
> Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> > This syntax has the encoding:
> > teletex-id = ttx-term  0*("$" ttx-param)
> > where ttx-param ends in an octetstring.
> >
> > Some escapment policy must be noted regarding the occurance of %0x24
> in
> > the octetstring (due to the $ delimiter). It probably would have
> been
> > easier if ttx-param was defined as:
> > ttx-param  = ttx-key ":" ttx-value-len ":" ttx-value
> >
> > but I think we're beyond going back and changing it.
> 
> The <octetstring> rule isn't actually defined anywhere so we're
> free to define it to be something sensible. I suggest we make
> it a hexadecimal string.
> 
> Note that the 4th edition of X.500 has deprecated this syntax.
> The X.500 working group has even gone to the extent of removing
> the teletexTerminalIdentifier attribute from every object class
> that used to reference it. An option for us is to throw it out too.
> 
> Regards,
> Steven