Re: strange uniqueMemberMatch

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

I'm fine will all but this:

At 05:07 PM 2/6/2005, Steven Legg wrote:
>   When performing an approximate match on an attribute where the equality
>   matching rule is uniqueMemberMatch, an attribute value without a <BitString>
>   component SHOULD match an assertion value with the same <distinguishedName>
>   component regardless of the <BitString> component of the assertion value.
>   Likewise, an assertion value without a <BitString> component SHOULD match
>   an attribute value with the same <distinguishedName> component regardless
>   of the <BitString> component of the attribute value.

as approximate matching behavior, as specified in X.501, is a local matter.

Kurt




>Regards,
>Steven
>
>>http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00027.html
>>http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00029.html
>>At 08 Jan 2003, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>>
>>>At 08:36 PM 1/5/2003, Steven Legg wrote:
>>>
>>>>The uniqueMemberMatch rule is an equality matching rule that is not
>>>>commutative, which causes problems in deciding whether attribute values
>>>>are equal or not when adding or deleting values. I've raised this with
>>>>the X.500 working group and I'm waiting to see how they resolve it.
>>>
>>>
>>>We likely should nudge them on this.  The current
>>>definition is, I think, problematic because uniqueMember
>>>is not single-valued.