[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: strange uniqueMemberMatch
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
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).