Re: LDAP filter question

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

At 07:30 AM 11/16/2004, Mark Smith wrote:
>I'd like to have one vote of agreement on this before I submit the revised draft.  Anyone?

I believe it should be removed.


>-Mark
>
>
>Return-Path: <owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
>Delivered-To: mcs@murdock.dreamhost.com
>Received: from boole.openldap.org (boole.openldap.org [204.152.186.50])
>        by murdock.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1771B16D2CB
>        for <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:52:23 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from boole.openldap.org (smmsp@localhost [IPv6:::1])
>        by boole.openldap.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iACEpTOX082626;
>        Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:51:31 GMT
>        (envelope-from owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org)
>Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost)
>        by boole.openldap.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with SMTP id iACEm37D082523;
>        Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:48:03 GMT
>        (envelope-from owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org)
>X-Authentication-Warning: boole.openldap.org: majordomo owned process doing -bs
>Received: by OpenLDAP.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:48:03 +0000
>Received: from murdock.dreamhost.com (postfix@murdock.dreamhost.com [66.33.205.6])
>        by boole.openldap.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iACElwvo082465;
>        Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:48:00 GMT
>        (envelope-from mcs@pearlcrescent.com)
>Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pcp04149991pcs.sanarb01.mi.comcast.net [68.41.54.14])
>        by murdock.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
>        id E702516D2EB; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:47:55 -0800 (PST)
>Message-ID: <4194CD15.6060904@pearlcrescent.com>
>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:47:49 -0500
>From: Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
>Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
>Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter-08.txt
>References: <200410252003.QAA29252@ietf.org> <6.1.2.0.0.20041025133504.033605a0@127.0.0.1> <6.1.2.0.0.20041029153144.02effdb0@127.0.0.1> <41879E43.7080302@pearlcrescent.com>
>In-Reply-To: <41879E43.7080302@pearlcrescent.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Sender: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
>Priority: non-urgent
>X-Loop: OpenLDAP
>Precedence: bulk
>Comment: ietf-ldapbis mailing list <http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/>
>List-Archive: <http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/>
>List-Help: <mailto:ietf-ldapbis-request@OpenLDAP.org?body=help>
>List-ID: ietf-ldapbis mailing list <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-ldapbis-request@OpenLDAP.org?body=unsubscribe>
>
>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
>