[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter-03.txt
Kurt - thanks for the memory refresh.
The original comments addressed binary data containing octets greater than
0x7f. These octets in an UTF-8 encoded string should not require escaping.
Perhaps:
The <valueencoding> rule provides that the octets that represent the
ASCII characters "*" (ASCII 0x2a), "(" (ASCII 0x28), ")" (ASCII
0x29), "\" (ASCII 0x5c), NUL (ASCII 0x00) are represented as a
backslash "\" (ASCII 0x5c) followed by the two hexadecimal digits
representing the value of the encoded octet. Octets greater than 0x7f
that are not part of an UTF-8 encoded string are similarly escaped.
Or something like that.
John McMeeking
"Kurt D. Zeilenga"
<Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> To: mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)
Sent by: cc: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>,
owner-ietf-ldapbis@O ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
penLDAP.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter-03.txt
11/15/2002 02:16 PM
At 06:38 AM 2002-11-15, Mark C Smith wrote:
>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>Why was section 6 "String Search Filter Definition" changed to
>>say that "all octets greater than 0x7f" must be escaped?
>>Shouldn't that at least be "MUST" esacpe them when generating filters,
>>but SHOULD (or MAY) recognize them unescaped, for backwards
>>compatibility?
>
>That change was the result of working group last call comments made by
Steven Legg (but I am the one who wrote the text).
So that everyone change refresh their memory...
Steven's comment:
http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200105/msg00027.html
and Mark's subsequent reply:
http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200106/msg00002.html
and last call summary:
http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200106/msg00003.html
Kurt