Reply to bilateralTable attribute

["Kevin E. Jordan" <[e-mail]>]

> As Harald has pointed out, the key ASN.1 is missing from the spec.
> Interestingly, I did type the data, but simply forgot to include the
> file in the parent document.   Here is the missing text:
> 
> bilateralTable ATTRIBUTE
>         WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX distinguishedNameSyntax
>         SINGLE VALUE
>         ::= at-bilateral-table
> 
> It has been suggested that the syntax be changed to SEQUENCE.   This
> would be needed if an order is necessary on the tables.   I think that
> unordered tables will suffice, and that the simpler change of making
> the bilateralTable multi-value is better.   I propose to do it this
> way.    Any comments?

Suppose that two organizations are members of a broad community and this
community has established a common "multilateral" table.  Suppose that the two
organizations establish a bilateral agreement to exchange special passwords,
or use special presentation addresses, or define more lenient authentication
requirements when connecting to each other.  If the attribute is defined
as multivalued, and  not as a SEQUENCE, then a calling MTA may not see
the values in the same order each time that it reads them.  Thus, the calling
parameters used by the calling MTA might differ from one call to the next.
Similarly, the authentication parameters used by the responding MTA might
differ from one call to the next.  Won't this cause problems?  At the
very least, it will generate unpredictable behavior.