Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter-08.txt

[Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>]

Mark Smith wrote:

> > > > > ...
> > > > >     lessorequal    = LANGLE EQUALS
> > > > >     extensible     = attr [dnattrs]
> > > > >                            [matchingrule] COLON EQUALS assertionvalue
> > > > >                      / [dnattrs]
> > > > >                             matchingrule COLON EQUALS assertionvalue
> > > > >                      / COLON EQUALS assertionvalue
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The grouping notation should be used here to improve clarity.
> > > > That is, ( ... ) / ( ... ) / ( ... ).  As presented, it
> > > > appears that ":=value" would be a valid extensible production.
>
>
> [mcs] Agreed.  I will add the ()s.

There is one more issue here which came to me as I was editing the 
document:  Filter-08 *does* specify that ":=value" is a valid extensible 
production.  I think that is simply an error and that the third option 
within the extensible production should be removed (it was introduced by 
me between the -01 and -02 revisions more than 2 years ago).  Section 
4.5.1 (Search Request) of [Protocol] disallows this:

   If the matchingRule field is absent, the type field MUST be
   present, and an equality match is performed for that type.

As does 2251.  Which makes perfect sense.

-Mark