[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (ITS#5608) additional info: modify/delete: postalAddress: no equality matching rule

michael@stroeder.com wrote:
> Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> Declarations of schema elements should be published as specified in
>> RFCs. [..] If caseIgnoreListMatch is not supported, than the 
>> MatchingRule definition for caseIgnoreListMatch should not be
>> published.
> I suspected an answer like this. I've changed my code to also look up 
> whether the matching rule description itself exists but loose subschema 
> definitions like this makes it really hard to implement smarter 
> schema-aware clients. :-/
> These kind of things would be interesting subjects of interop testing.
>> I note that the specification does allow publication of unimplemented 
>> descriptions.
> Even worse. :-(

Aside from conformity of OpenLDAP's current behavior, I'd consider this 
ITS as a request to finally implement that matching rule.


Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team

SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
Office:  +39 02 23998309
Mobile:  +39 333 4963172
Email:   ando@sys-net.it