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.
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.
Hmmpf! ITS destroys formatting. See also: http://www.stroeder.com/temp/openldap-its-8009.patch
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.
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/
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
--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
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.
--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
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.
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.
See also ITS#6151 has patch
changed notes
*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 6151 ***