Subject: Component Matching Rules

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:51:12 -0400

Hi All!

In RFC 2252, the integerFirstComponentMatch and
objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch matching rules are limited to
matching subschema attributes.  Two questions:

	1.  Why limited to subschema attributes?  
	    In X.500, they are general (and the object identifiers mean the
rules can 
	    be applied in general).  I would not like to see LDAPv3 add a
separate 
	    matching rule for non-subschema attributes later.  Also, I am
concerned about
	    the difference in semantics between LDAPv3 and X.500.

	2.  Why isn't the directoryStringFirstComponentMatch in LDAP?  
	    Although none of the attributes specified for LDAPv3 have it as a
matching 
	    rule, it is standardized in X.500.  It seems to me that there has
to be a 
	    viable set of standardized tools in LDAPv3, in order to prevent
schema that 
	    have incompatible elements for similar/identical purposes.  This
does mean 
	    interoperability testing, but that must be done for everything that
LDAPv3 
	    defines in its "toolbox".

Comments?  Answers?

Thanks,
Kathy Dally

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:53:24 -0700

At 12:51 PM 4/30/01, Kathy Dally wrote:
>matching subschema attributes.

No.  These are general matching rules.  RFC 2252 only requires
that they be implemented servers "which allow subschema entries
to be modified by clients", but they may be supported by any
implementation for any attribute of suitable syntax.

>Two questions:

They aren't.

>matching rule...

Likely this is the reason.

I believe the additional of such schema elements for LDAPv3 is an
area for future standardization (e.g., not by LDAPbis).  Currently
such standardization is being pursued on an individual basis within
the IETF (see draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-00.txt).

Kurt

---

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:37:21 -0400

Hi Kurt!

Responses are in-line (kld).

Thanks,
Kathy

> implementation for any attribute of suitable syntax.
kld:  Ok.  Then, I propose that there not be a separate section on 
subschema attribute matching rules.  The two that are in section 8.4, 
RFC 2252 should be moved into section 8.1.  The descriptions of the 
two rules should still have information about subschema attributes in 
the new section and should have the conformance clarified.
> >        1.  Why limited to subschema attributes?
kld:  Having them in a special section and not addressing the fact 
that they could be used with non-schema attributes led to my confusion.
> the IETF (see draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-00.txt).
kld:  I agree.  I am working with your strawman suggestions, in which 
new elements were introduced.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:00:08 -0700

At 02:37 PM 4/30/01, Kathy Dally wrote:
>RFC 2252 should be moved into section 8.1. 

Or the title of 8.4 changed to "First Component matching rules"
or the like.

>I am working with your strawman suggestions, in which 

The strawman suggestions I wrote last summer should be treated
only as food for thought.