Re: protocol: inappropriateMatching result code

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

inappropriateMatching is an AttributeProblem, part of an
attributeError, in X.511.  The X.511 example "in a filter"
is, I think, misleading.  This error is more appropriately
returned by compare when there is no EQUALITY rule for the
attribute type in the assertion... or by modify when
adding/deleting individual values of an attribute which
doesn't have an EQUALITY matching rule.

We likely should replace "in a filter" with "in an
assertion".

Kurt

At 06:14 AM 1/1/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>When is the inappropriateMatching result code returned?
>Its description in Appendix A says:
>
>     Indicates that an attempt was made, e.g. in a filter, to use
>     a matching rule not defined for the attribute type concerned.
>
>This text is roughly copied from X.511 section 12.4.
>
>However, [Protocol] Section 4.5.1 (Search Request) implies that this
>does not return an error, but just causes entries to be ignored:
>
>- The extensibleMatch description says:
>     If the type field is present and the matchingRule is present,
>     (...) the matchingRule MUST be one
>     suitable for use with the specified type (see [Syntaxes]),
>     otherwise the filter item is undefined.
>
>- A bit earlier, the section says:
>     If the filter evaluates
>     to FALSE or Undefined, then the entry is ignored for the search.
>
>- Other ways to use extensibleMatch (like ...:dn:matchingrule:=val,
>  which might pass an attribute value to an inappropriate matching
>  rule) don't say that the result is undefined and non-error the
>  same way, but it seems implied that they work the same way.
>
>OTOH, I imagine the result code could be returned for e.g.:
>- an unrecognized extensibleMatch matching rule,
>- extensibleMatch with neither matching rule nor attribute type,
>- equality match on an attribute with no EQUALITY matching rule.
>
>-- 
>Hallvard