Issue 8009 - SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch for *Record in cosine schema
Summary: SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch for *Record in cosine schema
Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of issue 6151
Alias: None
Product: OpenLDAP
Classification: Unclassified
Component: slapd (show other issues)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: --- normal
Target Milestone: 2.5.0
Assignee: OpenLDAP project
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-12-19 10:06 UTC by Michael Ströder
Modified: 2020-10-14 21:28 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
openldap-its-8009.patch (4.28 KB, patch)
2014-12-19 10:27 UTC, Michael Ströder
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Michael Ströder 2014-12-19 10:06:54 UTC
Full_Name: 
Version: HEAD
OS: 
URL: 
Submission from: (NULL) (79.219.126.25)


SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch should be added to attributes *Record in
cosine schema files to be compatible to attributes defined in UNINETT's DNS
schema files.

Patch will follow.
Comment 1 Michael Ströder 2014-12-19 10:27:41 UTC
Find attached a patch file for this.

I'd be glad if this could make it into 2.4.41.

I, Michael Ströder, hereby place the attached modifications to OpenLDAP
Software (and only these modifications) into the public domain. Hence, these
modifications may be freely used and/or redistributed for any purpose with or
without attribution and/or other notice.
Comment 2 Michael Ströder 2014-12-19 10:37:27 UTC
Hmmpf! ITS destroys formatting.

See also:

http://www.stroeder.com/temp/openldap-its-8009.patch

Comment 3 Michael Ströder 2014-12-19 10:52:36 UTC
Another question in this context:

Wouldn't it make sense to keep the matchingRuleUse descriptions in sync?

Unfortunately they are in schema_prep.c. :-(

Or maybe slapd should automagically update matchingRuleUse according to
attribute type descriptions found in the subschema.

One could argue that APPLIES in matchingRuleUse is not well designed because
it references attribute types and instead of LDAP syntaxes.

Background:
I was wondering whether I could work around missing SUBSTR matching rules in
web2ldap by looking at matchingRuleUse and auto-generate appropriate
extensible filters…

Ciao, Michael.


Comment 4 Howard Chu 2014-12-19 20:08:38 UTC
michael@stroeder.com wrote:
> Full_Name:
> Version: HEAD
> OS:
> URL:
> Submission from: (NULL) (79.219.126.25)
>
>
> SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch should be added to attributes *Record in
> cosine schema files to be compatible to attributes defined in UNINETT's DNS
> schema files.

I didn't know there was a new revision of the COSINE schema. Where was 
it published?

-- 
   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
   Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/

Comment 5 Michael Ströder 2014-12-19 20:25:26 UTC
Howard Chu wrote:
> I didn't know there was a new revision of the COSINE schema. Where was it
> published?

There isn't a new version of the COSINE schema.

But the attributes defined in RFC 1274, which were not added to RFC 4524 [1],
are used in the usual DNS zone schema which defines object class 'dNSDomain2'.
The DNS zone schema defines more attributes for DNS RRs and all of them have a
SUBSTR matching rule defined.

If you reject this patch because you don't want to change a "standard" schema
the other possibility would be to completely hunk out these RFC 1274
declarations from cosine.(schema|ldif) to avoid collision with separate DNS
schema files adding them.

Ciao, Michael.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4524#appendix-A.4

Comment 6 Quanah Gibson-Mount 2014-12-19 22:13:12 UTC
--On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:25 PM +0000 michael@stroeder.com wrote:

> There isn't a new version of the COSINE schema.
>
> But the attributes defined in RFC 1274, which were not added to RFC 4524
> [1], are used in the usual DNS zone schema which defines object class
> 'dNSDomain2'. The DNS zone schema defines more attributes for DNS RRs and
> all of them have a SUBSTR matching rule defined.
>
> If you reject this patch because you don't want to change a "standard"
> schema the other possibility would be to completely hunk out these RFC
> 1274 declarations from cosine.(schema|ldif) to avoid collision with
> separate DNS schema files adding them.
>
> Ciao, Michael.
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4524#appendix-A.4

This sounds like a 2.5 feature request then.  We can keep it in mind for 
that.

2.4 is for bugfixes and regressions only.

--Quanah


--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

Comment 7 Michael Ströder 2014-12-19 22:29:59 UTC
quanah@zimbra.com wrote:
> --On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:25 PM +0000 michael@stroeder.com wrote:
> 
>> There isn't a new version of the COSINE schema.
>>
>> But the attributes defined in RFC 1274, which were not added to RFC 4524
>> [1], are used in the usual DNS zone schema which defines object class
>> 'dNSDomain2'. The DNS zone schema defines more attributes for DNS RRs and
>> all of them have a SUBSTR matching rule defined.
>>
>> If you reject this patch because you don't want to change a "standard"
>> schema the other possibility would be to completely hunk out these RFC
>> 1274 declarations from cosine.(schema|ldif) to avoid collision with
>> separate DNS schema files adding them.
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4524#appendix-A.4
> 
> This sounds like a 2.5 feature request then.  We can keep it in mind for 
> that.
> 
> 2.4 is for bugfixes and regressions only.

My patch would be trivial and without causing any harm.

Ciao, Michael.

Comment 8 Quanah Gibson-Mount 2014-12-19 23:02:41 UTC
--On Friday, December 19, 2014 11:29 PM +0100 Michael Ströder 
<michael@stroeder.com> wrote:

>> 2.4 is for bugfixes and regressions only.

See above.


--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

Comment 9 Michael Ströder 2014-12-19 23:40:28 UTC
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Friday, December 19, 2014 11:29 PM +0100 Michael Ströder
> <michael@stroeder.com> wrote:
> 
>>> 2.4 is for bugfixes and regressions only.
> 
> See above.

Well, I consider it to be a serious defect that the old *Record attribute type
descriptions defined in obsoleted RFC 1274 are still in cosine.(ldif|schema)
even though they are not in RFC 4524.

I also consider it to be a bug that aRecord and aAAARecord don't have the same
attribute type description.

Ciao, Michael.


Comment 10 Michael Ströder 2014-12-19 23:56:43 UTC
Michael Ströder wrote:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> --On Friday, December 19, 2014 11:29 PM +0100 Michael Ströder
>> <michael@stroeder.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 2.4 is for bugfixes and regressions only.
>>
>> See above.
> 
> Well, I consider it to be a serious defect that the old *Record attribute type
> descriptions defined in obsoleted RFC 1274 are still in cosine.(ldif|schema)
> even though they are not in RFC 4524.
> 
> I also consider it to be a bug that aRecord and aAAARecord don't have the same
> attribute type description.

Hmm, this issue with cosine.(ldif|schema) is sitting in ITS since more than
four years:

ITS#6151 (slipped from my memory before filing this issue)

Ciao, Michael.

Comment 11 OpenLDAP project 2017-09-11 16:49:49 UTC
See also ITS#6151
has patch
Comment 12 Quanah Gibson-Mount 2017-09-11 16:49:49 UTC
changed notes
Comment 13 Quanah Gibson-Mount 2020-03-20 21:34:19 UTC

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 6151 ***