Re: [Syntaxes] += RFC 3698?

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

At 08:31 PM 9/27/2004, Steven Legg wrote:
>I don't have a strong opinion either way. It should be noted that the
>storedPrefixMatch is not defined in X.520:1993 so it can't be rolled
>into [Syntaxes]. If the Chairs want to declare that there is consensus
>on including all the rules from RFC 3698, except for storedPrefixMatch,
>then I'll take care of it.

Are there any objections to adding these rules?

Any objection to adding octetStringSubstringsMatch as well?

I couldn't include it in RFC 3698 due to how substrings
assertions were defined in RFC 2251/2252.  Now that we've
fixed substrings assertions, octetStringSubstringsMatch
can now properly be specified for use in LDAP.  Given that
LDAP matching rule specification does little more than
incorporate the X.500 rule, I don't have a problem with
including it (even though it is not presently specified
in a standard track RFC).

-- Kurt


>Regards,
>Steven
>
>Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>People are puzzled as to why the RFC 3698 rules are missing from
>>[Syntaxes] (I saw this happen just last week). I vote (unless there are
>>problems with doing so) to add them.
>>Jim
>>
>>>>>Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> 9/27/04 2:24:54 AM
>>Will the matching rules from RFC 3698 be included in [Syntaxes]?
>>It was discussed in thread 'Protocol: Rolling in recent updates'
>>in December; Kurt had a list of suggested 'SHOULD/MAY implement'.