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

Re: OpenLDAP as an address book for MS Outlook

Philip Guenther wrote:
> > You have lost me. The bad Outlook request is not about filtering, it's 
> > about sorting (ordering). It is ordering that is denied by the server. 
> > There is nothing about ordering in the link you have given.
> Let's look back at the message you're replying to, Michael Str?der's:
> > Since you insist on using a rather unusable feature you should probably 
> > dive into RFC 2891 and look at this:
> > 
> >       SortKeyList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
> >                  attributeType   AttributeDescription,
> >                  orderingRule    [0] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL,
> >                  reverseOrder    [1] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }
> > 
> > The LDAP client can (optionally) define which ordering matching rule to 
> > use for a particular attribute type. So ask M$ to send 'orderingRule' in 
> > the SSS request control if they do not send it yet. I'm too lazy to 
> > check in the PCAP data you posted before.
> That "orderingRule [0] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL" line means that after each 
> attributeType to sort on, the client can indicate what orderingRule should 
> be used to do the ordering for that attribute.
> So, it would seem that a client should be able to portably request sorting 
> on the cn attribute in a case-insensitive fashion by sending the control 
> with that optional orderingRule filled in.  That should work against any 
> server that supports the control and the desired case-insensitive rule.
> It should be possible to test this against OpenLDAP with something like:
> 	ldapsearch -E sss=cn:caseIgnoreOrderingMatch '(cn=*)' cn

Yes, this works on an unpatched slapd, even if I use "!sss". What is
the difference between this request and the bad one from Outlook (in
plain words, if you can, please).

> (plus whatever binding option you need, of course)
> However, that's not what Outlook does.  To quote the dump you showed:
>             Control
>                 controlType: 1.2.840.113556.1.4.473 (sortKeyList)
>                 criticality: True
>                 SortKeyList: 1 item
>                     SortKeyList item
>                         attributeType: cn
>             Control
>                 controlType: 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.9 (LDAP_CONTROL_VLVREQUEST VLV)
>                 controlValue: 308400000012020100020127a08400000006020101020100
> Note that an orderingRule is not given, thus unnecessarily making the 
> client dependent on the server extending a standard schema.

If I wanted to reproduce the Outlook's incorrect request, what
ldapsearch command line should that be?

Also, do I understand correctly that if Outlook explicitely included an
orderingRule in its request, there would be no error from the server
even if the orderingRule for this attribute is not defined in the schema?

Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN