Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): The Binary Encoding Option
draft-legg-ldap-binary-04

[Ballot discuss]
Section 4 says:
  >
  > These syntaxes also have an additional requirement that the exact
  > BER encoding must be preserved.  Note that this is a property of
  > the syntaxes themselves, and not a property of the binary option.
  >
  The digitally signed objects really need DER encoding.  Since DER is
  a proper subset of BER, this text is correct.  The reader might be
  better served knowing that preservation of the DER means that the
  LDAP client will not have to perform BER-decode and then DER-encode
  in order to validate the digital signature.

[Ballot discuss]
However, except for the case of certain attribute syntaxes whose
  values are required to BER encoded, no attempt is made here to
  eliminate the known consistency problems.  Rather the focus is on
  capturing current behaviours.  A more thorough solution is left for a
  future specification.

This is a strange statement in a PS. Can it be rewritten to make it
clear that these are known *implementation* consistency problems?

[Ballot discuss]
The Abstract and Introduction need to indicate that this document
  updates [SYNTAX].

  Section 4 says:
  >
  > These syntaxes also have an additional requirement that the exact
  > BER encoding must be preserved.  Note that this is a property of
  > the syntaxes themselves, and not a property of the binary option.
  >
  The digitally signed objects really need DER encoding.  Since DER is
  a proper subset of BER, this text is correct.  The reader might be
  better served knowing that preservation of the DER means that the
  LDAP client will not have to perform BER-decode and then DER-encode
  in order to validate the digital signature.