[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt
I'll try to add these distinctions, but probably not until the next edit
(getting close here).
Jim
>>> "Timothy Hahn" <hahnt@us.ibm.com> 03/01/02 01:40PM >>>
Kurt,
In reading this, the thought occurs to me that we might be better off
listing "in which operations" the effects of the "binary" option
rather
than against which ASN.1 construct. The ASN.1 constructs from the
protocol
have a habit of showing up in other places later on ... and carrying
forward the semantics of "binary" interpretation might not make sense
there.
I would rather see statements such as: when "binary" shows up in
"AttributeDescriptionList" on a "search" operation, it means ....
Regards,
Tim Hahn
Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
phone: 607.752.6388 tie-line: 8/852.6388
fax: 607.752.3681
"Kurt D. Zeilenga"
<Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> To: "Jim
Sermersheim" <JIMSE@novell.com>
Sent by: cc:
<d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk>, <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
owner-ietf-ldapbis@O Subject: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt
penLDAP.org
03/01/2002 03:17 PM
At 11:31 AM 2002-03-01, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>Let's try this one:
>
>"4.1.5.x. Binary Transfer Option
>
>If the "binary" option is present in an AttributeDescription, it
>specifies that data within the AttributeValue(s) of the attribute be
>transferred in protocol as BER encoded data according to the ASN.1
data
>type corresponding to the attribute's LDAP syntax. The LDAP syntax is
>indicated by the "SYNTAX" part of the AttributeTypeDescription.
I think we need to clarify that an ;binary in an AttributeDescription
list indicates a request for binary transfer but ;binary in an
AttributeDescription associated with an AttributeValue(s) or
AssertionValue(s) indicates that the AttributeValue(s) or
AssertionValue(s) contain a BER encoding of the value instead
of the "native" string encoding of the value.
Some food for thought:
If the "binary" option is present in an AttributeDescription
associated with AttributeValue(s) or AssertionValue(s), the
option indicates these AttributeValue(s) or Assertion(s) contain
a BER encoding, not the "native" string encoding, of the value.
If the "binary" option is present in an AttributeDescription
in an AttributeDescriptionList, it signifies a request for
the return of the associated attribute (and its subtypes) using
binary transfer.
The attribute associated with an AttributeDescription containing
the binary option is that which has the AttributeDescription of
the same attribute type and all options excepting the binary
option.
...
>The presence or absence of the "binary" option only affects the
>transfer of attribute values in protocol; servers store any
particular
>attribute in a server-defined format. If a client requests that a
server
>return an attribute in the binary format, but the server cannot
generate
>that format, the server MUST treat the attribute type as
unrecognized.
>Similarly, clients MUST NOT expect servers to return an attribute in
>binary format if the client requested that attribute by name without
the
>"binary" option.
>
>This option is intended to be used with attributes whose syntax is a
>complex ASN.1 data type, but may be associated with any attribute
whose
>ASN.1 type is known."
>
>(Note that AttributeValue is defined as an OCTET STRING containing
some
>encoded data per the syntax and possibly further specified by a
transfer
>option)
Note that the AttributeValue and AssertionValue are OCTET STRINGs
which contain an encoding of the value per its syntax. ;binary
indicates the BER encoding is used. Other transfer options indicate
other encodings. The lack of a transfer option indicates the
"native" string encoding is used.
>Jim
>
>>>> David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk> 02/24/02 04:17PM >>>
>Jim
>
>I think the new text for attribute descriptions is very good. Much
>better than before, especially the description of subtyping. However,
>the subsection on Binary Option (4.1.5.1) could still do with some
>improvement I feel. Firstly, the section is not as clear as recent
>email
>we have had on the list, explaining that the attribute value,
whatever
>it is, is treated (or turned into) as an octet string containing BER,
>and then a TL octet wrapper is placed around it.
>
>Secondly, the section talks about overriding the native encoding and
>sending it as BER instead. But then your example uses certificates,
>that
>are native BER encoded. So what overriding is there to take place. It
>would seem like none, and therefore the effect of ;binary is null. In
>other words the section does not clearly indicate to me what the
>difference would be in transferring a certificate without ;binary and
>one with i.e. certificate;binary. This is unfortunate and confusing
>to
>the reader. I suggest you use an example that is not a certificate,
>but
>is a simple string. You might then also add text to say what the
>effect
>of ;binary is on a value that is already BER encoded.
>
>I find this sentence particular confusing
>
>"Instead the attribute is to be transferred as
> a binary value encoded using the Basic Encoding Rules [X.690]."
>
>The reason it is confusing is that all values in BER are binary. So
if
>the value is already BER what more needs to be done to it? It would
>seem
>nothing.
>
>Perhaps the sentence might read better as
>
>"Instead the attribute value is transferred as an ASN.1
>OctetStringType,
>where the embedded octet string value is itself a BER encoded value"
>
>
>The second sentence
>"The
> syntax of the binary value is an ASN.1 data type definition, which
>is
> referenced by the "SYNTAX" part of the attribute type definition."
>
>also has some errors in it, and could then be changed to
>
>"The syntax of the BER encoded value is an ASN.1 data type, which
>must conform to the "SYNTAX" part of the AttributeTypeDescription."
>
>Is that any better?
>
>David
>
>Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> This revision contains the changes recommended by the attribute
>options
>> engineering team. Please review section 4.1.5 carefully.
>>
>> Other changes are listed in section B.7
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> >>> <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> 01/31/02 05:00AM >>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the LDAP (v3) Revision Working Group
of
>> the IETF.
>>
>> Title : Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3)
>> Author(s) : J. Sermersheim
>> Filename : draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt
>> Pages : 56
>> Date : 30-Jan-02
>>
>> The protocol described in this document is designed to provide
>access
>> to directories supporting the [X.500] models, while not incurring
>the
>> resource requirements of the X.500 Directory Access Protocol (DAP).
>> This protocol is specifically targeted at management applications
>and
>> browser applications that provide read/write interactive access to
>> directories. When used with a directory supporting the X.500
>> protocols, it is intended to be a complement to the X.500 DAP.
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt
>
>>
>> To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message
>to
>> ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
>> message.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
>> username
>> "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging
in,
>> type "cd internet-drafts" and then
>> "get draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt".
>>
>> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>
>> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>>
>> Send a message to:
>> mailserv@ietf.org.
>> In the body type:
>> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt".
>>
>> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
>> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use
this
>> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the
>"FILE"
>> command. To decode the response(s), you will need
"munpack"
>or
>> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant
mail
>> readers
>> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
>> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been
>split
>> up into multiple messages), so check your local
>documentation
>> on
>> how to manipulate these messages.
>>
>>
>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>> Internet-Draft.
>
>--
>*****************************************************************
>
>David W. Chadwick, BSc PhD
>Professor of Information Systems Security
>IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
>Tel: +44 161 295 5351 Fax +44 161 745 8169
>Mobile: +44 77 96 44 7184
>Email: >alD.W.Chadwick@salford.ac.uk
>Home Page: http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
>Research Projects: http://sec.isi.salford.ac.uk
>Understanding X.500: http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
>X.500/LDAP Seminars: http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
>Entrust key validation string: MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J
>PGP Key ID is 0xBC238DE5
>
>*****************************************************************