Re: DNAMES Section4.4.4.htm

Hi Thomas,

thanks for picking this up again I didn't have time up to now to 
elaborate this further

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2007-06-20 20:16:39 +0200, Konrad Lanz wrote:
>   
>> * The lower case "should" should be a "MAY".
>>     
>
> So updated in the Editor's Draft.
>   

Makes clear that it's truly optional.

>> * We should consider referencing RFC 2253 and also RFC 4514 (after checking 
>> if they are no collateral effects).
>>     
>
> So updated in the Editor's Draft.
>   

Can we be sure there aren't any problems by simply changing to RFC 4514 ?
I'd hesitate to change this until we are entirely sure.

>> * Do we run into an "internationalization problem" when
>> referencing the grammar of RFC 2253 / RFC 4514 ?
>>     
>
> Thinking about this more, I'm inclined to believe that we don't run
> into that problem -- XML is defined in terms of characters, the
> grammar is defined in terms of a particular representation of these
> characters, and if there is no UTF-8 encoded representation of the
> string that was present in the DNAME, then the dotted-decimal form
> can be used.
>   

As far as I know the dotted-decimal form is useful to represent the 
AttributeType by it's OID.

What is the dotted-decimal form for characters?

Assuming you are talking about escaping characters using \xx\xx , I 
fully agree with this position as you can see from my edits you quoted. 
I left the relevant bit below.

>> 	 [...] [INS: implying that [8]character references could
>> 	 be intruduced. Due to [9]immediate expansion these are
>> 	 transparent in a canonicalized XML content or on an
>> 	 application layer.  Note that implementations MAY just as
>> 	 well rely on escaping such characters as allowed in
>> 	 section 2.4 of RFC 2253 [[10]LDAP-DN]. :INS] 
>>     
>
> Ugh, that seems to make things more complicated than they need be.
>   
Well, I thought it would make things more explicit and hence easier to 
read. Remember we were guessing a lot until we finally discovered the 
intention of these rules. However I do not have a strong opinion about this.
>> @@@Konrad to Thomas:[...]
> I'd actually suggest that we move the "Since a XML document..." part
> out of the bullet points (and therefore out of the scope of the
> MAY), since (a) it doesn't actually introduce another conformance
> requirement, and (b) it applies whether or not the augmented
> processing rules are used.  I've made that change in the Editor's
> Draft.
>   
I agree, this would further allow us to talk about escaping rather then 
about encoding.

s/the string encoding rules in section 2.4/the character escaping rules 
in section 2.4/

Otherwise, I'm happy with the current red line version of section 4.4.4 
with the additional caveat that changing from RFC 2253 to RFC 4514 does 
not introduce any problems.

regards
Konrad

-- 
Konrad Lanz, IAIK/SIC - Graz University of Technology
Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria
Tel: +43 316 873 5547
Fax: +43 316 873 5520
https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz
http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at

Certificate chain (including the EuroPKI root certificate):
https://europki.iaik.at/ca/europki-at/cert_download.htm