[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: ;binary option
Chris,
Unless there is a typo in your text, you seem to be saying that ;binary was
ignored for certificates, at least for the BLITS tests. It then seems
strange that you would now require it?
Ron.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Harding [mailto:c.harding@opengroup.org]
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2002 19:15
To: dif-members@opengroup.org; ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: ;binary option
Hi -
The two IETF ldapbis ;binary design teams have now reported, and it looks
as though the conclusion may be to remove ;binary from the specification.
I've just looked through BLITS, and this does not mention the ;binary
option. There are many tests that use certificates, but they all give the
attiibute type as userCertificate, cACertificate, etc, rather than
userCertificate;binary etc. So there would seem to be no impact on BLITS.
Whether there is an impact on how far implementations can pass the BLITS
tests may be another matter.
I don't personally see any interoperability issues, provided that it is
clear that the requirement is always to use the ;binary encoding for
certificates etc. (per section 6.5 of RFC 2252) and that RFC 1778 (LDAP
v2), which defines a different encoding, is now officially dead. Kurt, this
isn't completely clear from your mail - am I right that this is what is
intended?
>X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:03:48 -0700
>To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
>From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
>Subject: ;binary a/b design teams' summary / recommendation review
>Sender: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
>Priority: non-urgent
>X-Loop: OpenLDAP
>Comment: ietf-ldapbis mailing list <http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/>
>List-Archive: <http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/>
>List-Help: <mailto:ietf-ldapbis-request@OpenLDAP.org?body=help>
>List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:ietf-ldapbis-request@OpenLDAP.org?body=unsubscribe>
>
>Two design teams were formed to consider how to clarify the
>specification of the ;binary (and other) transfer option
>features in the LDAP "core" technical specification.
> http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200204/msg00073.html
>
>This message provides a brief summary of the teams discussions,
>a combined recommendation, and initiates a 2-week WG discussion
>period to determine whether the WG consensus supports adopting
>the teams' recommendation. Both design teams are now disbanded.
>
>While each team mission was to produce alternative text, both
>teams worked together to ensure each understood the issues
>and to determine the areas of contention. One key area was
>the semantics of all user attribute search requests. One camp
>(a cross section of both teams), basically, thought that a
>server should choose between returning either the native
>encoding (if defined and supported) and the binary (if supported)
>encoding. One camp thought that a server should only return
>values in their native encoding (to avoid interoperability caused
>by a server choice). After much debate, it was found that both
>approaches are problematic. In short, the first approach is
>problematic in that imperatives required to ensure
>interoperability caused by the server choice would limit the
>general usefulness of all user attribute search requests.
>The second approach is problematic because it requires
>redefinition of all user attributes requests in a manner
>inconsistent with the existing technical specification.
>
>It was clear that the camps were deadlocked and that it
>would be difficult for either camp to garner WG consensus.
>
>Removal of the ;binary feature (and all mention of transfer
>options) was then discussed. The teams concluded that,
>given the known interoperability problems with ;binary,
>limitations of the ;binary features, and the unsuitability
>of proposed revisions of its technical specification, the
>;binary feature (and all mention of transfer options)
>should be removed from the technical specification.
>
>The teams recognized that removal of the ;binary feature
>would raise some backwards compatibility issues and is an
>area which subsequent work may be appropriate to pursue.
>
>The WG is to consider the teams' proposal to remove ;binary
>feature (and all mention of transfer options). A two-week
>comment period is hereby initiated on this proposal
>ending 24 May 2002. Based upon your comments, the WG chairs
>will gauge WG consensus and take appropriate actions.
>
>-- LDAPbis WG chairs
Regards,
Chris
+++++
========================================================================
Dr. Christopher J. Harding
T H E Executive Director for the Directory Interoperability Forum
O P E N Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading RG1 1AX, UK
G R O U P Mailto:c.harding@opengroup.org Phone: +44 118 902 3018
WWW: http://www.opengroup.org Mobile: +44 774 063 1520
========================================================================
The Open Group Conference
"Boundaryless Information Systems: The Role of Web Services"
Boston, Massachusetts 22-26 July 2002
http://www.opengroup.org/boston2002
========================================================================