Re: Syntax Issues

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

My opinion is that if you want more than BLOB semantics, then
you need to define a new syntax.  However, new syntaxes should
have a string representation.

At 01:16 PM 7/30/00 +0100, David Chadwick wrote:

>>  I'm also in favor of defining a new
>> OID and matching rule (or rules). I'm told of a WG meeting some time
>> back (Chicago maybe?) where there was an overwhelming consensus NOT to
>> define new syntax OIDS. If this is still the case, a lesser evil might
>> be to use Octet String syntax, and just force exact matching (eck).
>> 
>
>This is part of a larger issue that should be covered by a Shema 
>BOF if there is one. I have written a PKIX id that has defined 
>matching rules and syntaxes for certificates and CRLs etc. I dont 
>think we can dodge this issue in general. Whilst we dont want to 
>unnecessarily define extra syntaxes for the sake of it, we do want 
>to allow users to have sensible and easy ways of matching on 
>complex attributes (such as ACI and certificates)
>
>David
>
>***************************************************
>
>David Chadwick
>IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
>Tel +44 161 295 5351  Fax +44 161 745 8169
>Mobile +44 790 167 0359
>Email D.W.Chadwick@salford.ac.uk
>Home Page  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
>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
>
>***************************************************