Re: syntaxes-09 notes

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 10:28 PM 2/6/2005, Steven Legg wrote:
>>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>>3.3.11.  Facsimile Telephone Number
>>> (..)
>>>It would be nice if a description (maybe ABNF) of this syntax is added,
>>>similar to the ABNF of GeneralizedTime.  (Or maybe put it under
>>>telephoneNumber and refer to that.)
> (...)
> Second, I don't think it appropriate to provide an ABNF here.

OK...

> The E.123 format is best considered a free format.  While it
> can certainly be argued that a more precise format would be
> better, it is not generally within our scope to update X.500
> syntaxes (or to introduce new syntaxes).

That's fine by me.

However, you rejected a complaint that OpenLDAP did not accept
"---" as a phone number.  Have you changed your mind, or do I
misunderstand what you mean by free format?

Here:

http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200409/msg00099.html

>From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:45:54 -0700
>
>At 04:24 PM 9/5/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>>At 02:26 PM 9/5/2004, vadim wrote:
>>>> 1) 2.2.15 does not accept value "---" of attribute
>>>> telephoneNumber, (...)
>>>
>>> "---" is not a telephone number.  It is proper for a LDAP server
>>> to disallow the addition of such garbage.
>>
>> Not as far as I can tell.  At least, it's valid according to the
>> telephone number syntax in draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-08.txt.
>
> Maybe the I-D is not as clear as it could be.
>
> Values of this syntax represent telephone numbers using the E.123
> format encoded in a printable string.  The printable string "---"
> simply doesn't represent a telephone number.  (Maybe it represents
> "no telephone number", but that's not a telephone number.)

-- 
Hallvard