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