I agree with your assessment and the change.
Jim
>>> Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com> 11/16/04 8:30:24 AM >>>
I'd like to have one vote of agreement on this before I submit the
revised draft. Anyone?
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
LDAP filter question
From:
Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>
Date:
Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:30:24 -0500
To:
ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
To:
ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
I'd like to have one vote of agreement on this before I submit the
revised draft. Anyone?
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter-08.txt
From:
Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>
Date:
Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:47:49 -0500
To:
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
To:
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
CC:
ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
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