RE: strange uniqueMemberMatch

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

Steven Legg writes:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>> To resolve this, I think the ITU should change the
>> uniqueMemberMatch semantics to:
>> (...)
> That's a reasonable way to make the matching rule commutative
> however it does have the consequence that the uniqueMember
> attribute cannot simultaneously hold the values cn=foo and
> cn=foo#'0'B.

That's better than what we have today:

- If cn=foo already exists in an entry, cn=foo#'0'B cannot be
  added because it tests out to be equal.  However, if cn=foo#'0'B
  already exists, cn=foo _can_ be added.  Or maybe the server does
  it the other way around, the standard allows that too.

- Similarly, an add request which adds both values at once will
  succeed or fail depending on which value is added first.

>> Also, I think X.501 should be state that only single-valued
>> attribute types can have non-commutative equality rules.
> 
> That, or require all equality matching rules to be commutative.

Commutative or take different types (the -firstComponentMatch rules).

-- 
Hallvard