Re: Extensible match in protocol and filter darfts

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

Vithalprasad Gaitonde wrote:
> There seems to be a contradiction on the extensible match filter between
> the protocol and filter drafts.
> Protocol draft in 4.5.1 on extensible match says "If the matching rule
> field is absent, the type field MUST be present, and the equality match
> is performed for that type".
> The filter draft in 7 (examples) gives an extensible match example of
> (:=Fred Filtstone) and says
> "The seventh and final example is a filter that should be applied to
>    any attribute (since both the attr and matching rule have been
>    omitted)."
> which is in contradiction to the protocol draft which mandates that at
> least attr type or matching rule be present.
>
> May  be its a good idea to reference the protocol draft in the
> explanantion of examples section of filter draft as the semantics of the
> filter are governed by the protocol draft.

I am not sure we need an explicit reference to the protocol document in 
that section, but I will definitely remove this particular example from 
the filter document (it is not in RFC 2254). Thanks for catching this error.

-Mark