RE: please publish draft-mmeredith-rootdse-vendor-info-01.txt

["Salter, Thomas A" <Thomas.Salter@unisys.com>]

I just noticed that the EQUALITY matching rule for these attributes in
caseExactIA5Match, but the syntaxes are now DirectoryString.

This led me back to RFC2252 which includes the definition for
caseIgnoreMatch (borrowed from X.520), but not caseExactMatch.

What happened to:
    ( 2.5.13.5 NAME 'caseExactMatch'
      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

And now that I've started down this path, what about:
caseExactOrderingMatch, caseExactSubstringsMatch,
numericStringOrderingMatch, telephoneNumberOrderingMatch, and a whole lot
more that X.520 defines?  Are these assumed to be inherited from X.520, but
not included in the "Servers SHOULD be capable ... " clause?  Or is this the
complete list that other RFCs may reference?

To get back to the subject, can vendor info draft include "EQUALITY
2.5.13.5" in the attribute definitions, or must it also define
caseExactMatch.