Re: CIM24 schema tweaks

[<rmoats@coreon.net>]

Mark-

I realize that but doesn't, that sort of put the cart
before the horse, by creating an implementation barrier?

Thinking about it, I suppose the document could define
a new matching rule and say "in case your directory
implementation doesn't support this you can use <blah>",
but I was looking for what <blah> could be besides
caseIgnoreMatch.

Ryan

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:21:05 -0800
>From: Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@sun.com>
>Subject: Re: CIM24 schema tweaks
>To: rmoats@coreon.net
>Cc: "Larry S. Bartz" <lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov>, 
"Quevedo Felix" <FQuevedo@smartpipes.com>, IETF Policy WG LIST 
<policy@raleigh.ibm.com>, ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org, 
ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>
>rmoats@coreon.net wrote:
>> 
>
>> 
>> Well, as an editor, I get to play the "no complaints 
without
>> making a suggestion" card.  What do you suggest as the
>> equality match?  Based on my reading of the X.500-series 
and
>> LDAP RFCs the only option for Directory Strings is
>> caseIgnoreMatch, and I'm not at all comfortable with
>> declaring that as the matching rule for a syntax that holds
>> UTF-8 strings.
>
>There can be other matching rules for Directory String syntax 
>attributes besides case ignore.  Case ignore is just the most 
>common.  You can have a Case Sensitive, or other more complex
>ones if you define them.
>
>Mark Wahl
>Sun Microsystems Inc.