[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [Syntaxes] += RFC 3698?


Kurt,

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: 
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 don't object, but there is the problem that there isn't a syntax OID
or LDAP-specific encoding for the assertion syntax of the matching rule,
i.e. OctetSubstringAssertion.

Regards,
Steven


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'.