Re: objectIdentifierMatch on ambiguous name

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> In short, I think we need to be clear as when <descr> form SHOULD
> be used and when it SHOULD NOT be used.  I think we all agree that,
> in LDAP, they SHOULD be used for AttributeTypes appearing in the
> protocol, values (and assertion values) of the objectClass attribute,
> and in <oid> productions appearing in schema descriptions.
> 
> How about?
>         MatchingRuleIDs appearing in extensible filters?
>         assertion values of attributeTypes, objectClasses, etc.?

I think a general statement is better than listing instances.
Something like

4.3.26 (OID):
  Since a short name can refer to different OIDs in different
  contexts (e.g. there might be an object class 'x-fubar' and an
  attribute type 'x-fubar' in a subschema), a server SHOULD NOT
  allow short names in the OID syntax in contexts where it does
  not know which <numericoid> the short name represents.

5.2.17 (objectIdentifierMatch):
  If the asserted value or attribute value is a short name of an OID,
  and the server does not know which <numericoid> the short name
  represents but allows such values as attribute values, the match
  evaluates to Undefiend, even if the asserted value and the attribute
  value are equal.

-- 
Hallvard