Re: Component Matching Rules

[Kathy Dally <kdally@mitre.org>]

Hi Kurt!

Responses are in-line (kld).

Thanks,
Kathy


"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> At 12:51 PM 4/30/01, Kathy Dally wrote:
> >In RFC 2252, the integerFirstComponentMatch and
> >objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch matching rules are limited to
> >matching subschema attributes.
> 
> No.  These are general matching rules.  RFC 2252 only requires
> that they be implemented servers "which allow subschema entries
> to be modified by clients", but they may be supported by any
> implementation for any attribute of suitable syntax.
kld:  Ok.  Then, I propose that there not be a separate section on 
subschema attribute matching rules.  The two that are in section 8.4, 
RFC 2252 should be moved into section 8.1.  The descriptions of the 
two rules should still have information about subschema attributes in 
the new section and should have the conformance clarified.
> 
> >Two questions:
> >
> >        1.  Why limited to subschema attributes?
> 
> They aren't.
kld:  Having them in a special section and not addressing the fact 
that they could be used with non-schema attributes led to my confusion.
 > 
> >        2.  Why isn't the directoryStringFirstComponentMatch in LDAP?
> >Although none of the attributes specified for LDAPv3 have it as a
> >matching rule...
> 
> Likely this is the reason.
> 
> I believe the additional of such schema elements for LDAPv3 is an
> area for future standardization (e.g., not by LDAPbis).  Currently
> such standardization is being pursued on an individual basis within
> the IETF (see draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-00.txt).
kld:  I agree.  I am working with your strawman suggestions, in which 
new elements were introduced.
> 
> Kurt