Re: [ldapext] New Version Notification for draft-stroeder-mailboxrelatedobject-06.txt

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Sun, 26 October 2014 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA881A88F7 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CGwZDmO75SzN for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 830851A88F4 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [23.240.242.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F46250A73; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <544D10C9.9050705@seantek.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:18:33 -0700
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga@isode.com>
References: <20140926115934.25447.2865.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <542558EB.4000709@stroeder.com> <5425848B.3040504@seantek.com> <54258E77.4010004@stroeder.com> <54258F68.7010109@stroeder.com> <54314F09.6080408@seantek.com> <5431B5BE.9030103@stroeder.com> <5431BDBA.70506@seantek.com> <387EEAAE-4396-465B-B1E6-540FB9D785D9@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <387EEAAE-4396-465B-B1E6-540FB9D785D9@isode.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030002040609050909050400"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/D1ryOHjLg2KmSFhBy919yDSouYo
Cc: ldapext@ietf.org, =?windows-1252?Q?Michael_Str=F6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] New Version Notification for draft-stroeder-mailboxrelatedobject-06.txt
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 15:19:50 -0000

On 10/26/2014 6:03 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com 
>> <mailto:dev+ietf@seantek.com>> wrote:
>>
>> This seems like a reasonable compromise under the circumstances and 
>> is not "arbitrary" since regardless of the time zone of the receiver, 
>> it would be interpreted as the same date anyway.
>
> I note it would surely represent the wrong date in +13 and +14 
> timezones.   To be safe, one has to extract the date using the UTC (Z) 
> timezone.

Ok...so is the point that "dateOfBirth" should have been constrained or 
encoded differently, such as:
#1 a string with the pattern YYYY-MM-DD (i.e., not GeneralizedTime, 
since GeneralizedTime apparently requires a time spec, X.680:2008 Clause 
46), or
#2 some structured data, such as a SEQUENCE of three integers for year, 
month, and date, or a NumericString using spaces as delimiters?

I note that the new TIME type (X.680:2008 Clause 38) allows for 
arbitrary time specifications, including YEAR-MONTH-DAY (X.680:2008 
Annex B). And that TIME was not invented at the time when dateOfBirth 
came out.

If that is the point, I see the objection. I also find it difficult to 
accept that "dateOfBirth" was defined incorrectly, given the state of 
the technology at the time. It could have been a lot worse.

Sean