Re: [Models] An attribute value should be equal to self

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 04:13 AM 3/8/2005, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>> In absence of a guarantee that R( X, X) is always TRUE,
>>> the [Models] statement in necessary.
>>
>>Necessary for what?
>
> To ensure that one can delete by value any and all values
> added by value.

That's useful, but not necessary.  One can delete the value by replacing
the attribute with all values but the one being deleted.  Just as being
able to store any UTF-8 string is useful but not necessary.  I think the
latter is far more important.

> Even though introduction of LDAPprep made apparent the need for
> this, this is not just about LDAPprep,   It's about any rule where
> there is any X where R(X,X) is Undefined.

Where?  It mentions interoperability and security in [Prep] 1.2.  I
don't see where it says that error returns from LDAPprep is necessary
for security, but for all I know it may be.  Nor does it mention why
being able to name individual values is more important than being able
to have any UTF-8 string in a Directory String.  I never agreed that
interoperability for values that fail LDAPprep, when interoperability
means "you can't use them at all", is more important than being able
to at least use them locally - and that was before we discovered just
how many problems there were with being able to store them at all.

I remember we discussed other workarounds for error returns (given that
there are error returns) than EQUALITY(X, X), but I don't remember if
any were acceptable.  Will be reading up on it, though.

-- 
Hallvard