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

Re: strange uniqueMemberMatch


Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Any progress with this?

No. The last correspondence with the X.500 group I had on this issue was on October 31, 2003. They remember discussing it and deciding on a solution but it seems no one can put their finger on what the resolution was.

I think Skip is editing the amendments for the next edition of X.500 so perhaps
he can tell us if the description of uniqueMember has been updated.

It's been a year now. I asked before, but I don't think anyone answered.

Probably my fault. Sorry!


http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00027.html http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00029.html

At 08 Jan 2003, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:

At 08:36 PM 1/5/2003, Steven Legg wrote:

The uniqueMemberMatch rule is an equality matching rule that is not
commutative, which causes problems in deciding whether attribute values
are equal or not when adding or deleting values. I've raised this with
the X.500 working group and I'm waiting to see how they resolve it.

We likely should nudge them on this. The current definition is, I think, problematic because uniqueMember is not single-valued.