[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: postalAddress matching rule
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I think you simply fail to realize that the subschema publication
mechanism has limitations to its usefulness. As specified, it's simply
not terribly usable as an implementation-supported-feature discovery
mechanism. (When LDAP was being revised, I did suggest how it could
become more useful, those suggestions were not supported by the
consensus of the WG. Oh well.)
Could you please point me to some related postings in the ietf-ldapbis
mailing list archive?
What you suggestion, I think, is quite problematic. Saying an attribute
has no equality rule is not the same as saying a particular
implementation doesn't support a particular rule. If a server where to
say "this attribute has no equality rule", then others (clients or
servers reading this) might not apply the equality rule even though they
have implemented it. That might lead to very odd behavior.
Your argument might be ok in this particular case and, as I said, I have
a work-around for that particular case. But in general it's debatable
whether the subschema is 1. advice to the client to do the right thing
or 2. to indicate to the client what the server does. I've seen many
interpretations in both directions - in discussions and in implementations.