RE: [security-services] Proposal to correct LDAP/X.500 profile attribute

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> I'm fine with the original option 2 if that's what folks are more
> comfortable with. That just means that the encoding must be signaled
> out-of-band (in the same way that the profile itself is signaled).
> 
> Option 6 is just an extension of option 2 that preserves the in-band
> signaling of the encoding (what we were trying to do with x500:Encoding)
> using xsi:type, but it does come at the expense of having to define
> extensions of the pre-defined types when alternate encodings 
> are being used.

I still prefer option 3, just move the Encoding attribute up where it should
have been, on <Attribute>, and leave the rest alone. I don't think it's more
(or less) of an impact than option 2 or 6, and an implementation that chose
to just ignore the attribute and base things on Name/NameFormat would still
work until some other encoding was defined.

But between 2 and 6, I think I'd prefer 2.

-- Scott