RE: matching for facsimileTelephoneNumber

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

?!?!  I agree with what you said, but the request was to
specify a matching rule for facsimileTelephoneNumber.
This is not currently done by X.520 so I claim the
matching rule is NOT part of the "core" spec and so is
out of scope.  If we are going to start specifying
matching rules for things in X.520 that don't have them
I claim we've strayed into new functionality.

I think we are in agreement about the approriateness
of this suggestion, but for different reasons.

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
[mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:41 PM
To: Ryan Moats
Cc: Stig Venaas; ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: RE: matching for facsimileTelephoneNumber


At 09:05 AM 12/21/00 -0600, Ryan Moats wrote:
>IMHO... If it isn't in X.520, then its a topic for LDAPEXT.
>(ietf-ldapext@netscape.com). No new functionality in LDAPBIS.

I note, per our charter, that all schema items which are not
required and/or described by the LDAPv3 "core" technical
specification are not within scope of the LDAPbis WG.

facsimileTelephoneNumber is described by the LDAPv3 "core"
technical specification, so it is within scope.  However,
the proposed change, IMO, would be inappropriate as it
would create, not resolve, interoperability problems.

Kurt