Re: syntaxes-09 notes

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ldapbis
Message-ID <[email protected]>
At 12:56 PM 3/6/2005, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>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?

E.123 a free format for representing a telephone number.  I
argue that it is not a telephone number and, much like dates
like 31 February 2006, can be rejected by the implementation.

Kurt



>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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.