Re: WG consensus: remove ;binary

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 07:13 AM 2002-05-30, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>Another implication may be that there is no obvious room for a
>transfer-encoding option. If the TS defines options as always having
>subtyping behavior, any special tranfer encoding mechanism would
>probably be in the form of a control.

I believe the "core" specification must allow for introduction
of other kinds of options, including the re-introduction transfer
options.

The consensus to remove ;binary (and mention of transfer options),
is not inconsistent with our previous consensus to clarify
that multiple kinds of options exist.

Kurt



>>>> Mark Smith <mcs@netscape.com> 05/29/02 05:08PM >>>
>Mark Wahl wrote:
>>>So with that said what is the transition plan for phasing it out of 
>>>current products and will it just ignor a ;binary tag on an
>LDAPsearch 
>>>for instance. 
>> 
>> 
>> It shouldn't be phased out of products as it is required for 
>> interoperability, it just needs to be moved from one document (2252
>revision)
>> to another.  The part of the LDAP specs which defines certificate
>attribute 
>> handling will need to define the ;binary transfer option for use with
>those 
>> attributes.
>
>I think we need to clarify the consequences of the LDAPbis WG's
>decision 
>to remove ;binary. My understanding is that the PKIX WG has no plans to
>
>use ;binary for PKI attributes, which means over time ;binary will be 
>entirely phased out (the main use for ;binary has been for PKI 
>attributes). That means we do have a transition issue that must be 
>addressed.
>
>-- 
>Mark Smith
>AOL Strategic Business Solutions
>My words are my own, not my employer's.
>
>
>---
>This message was sent via Netscape Messaging Server 6.0.