RE: some outstanding items for clarification

["Ryan Moats" <rmoats@coreon.net>]

I'll take a pass at this for now except for the following...

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
[mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Timothy Hahn
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 7:34 AM
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: some outstanding items for clarification

4) In draft-zeilenga-ldapbis-rfc2253-01.txt, I would like to see a note
regarding the use of caseExactMatch attribute types in distinguished names.
Historically, distinguished names have been made up of attributes that only
contain attribute types that are caseIgnore match.  A note indicating that
attribute types that are defined with caseExactMatch matching rule CAN be
used in distinguished names would be helpful to implementors.  Further, a
note regarding the equivalence of RDNs containing multiple attribute value
assertions (but in different orders) would be helpful as well.  This
information is inferrable from the X.500 standards and the definition of
distinguishedNameMatch in the X.500 standards.  However, a clarification in
the LDAP RFCs would clarify this for LDAP servers.

-----
This bleeds into the whole issue of what matching rules are supported.
Currently, I can not find a definitive statement in RFC 225[1-6] about
whether caseExactMatch is required for interoperability or not.  Until
we have a statement on whether it is required or not, this comment
needs to be taken under advisement, because it will be affected by
that decision.

Ryan