Subject: Re: Summary of [Models] issues from WG Last Call

From: John McMeeking <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:10:17 -0600

With Steven's and  Kurt's corrections to item 6 (aliases), this looks good
to me.

John  McMeeking

---

From: Christopher Oliva <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:09:18 -0500

> 7) preservation of user information
>    http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00078.html
>    A request was made to change the value preservation requirement
>    to bit perfect.  The current requirement is believed to be
>    technically sound and is supported by consensus.  No action.

I'd like to clarify that I did not intend to advocate bit perfect storage of
values (unless this is required by the syntax definition).

I understand the server may need to transliterate value encodings for one
reason or another. The current text in models allows a server to use the
equality matching rule to validate that the new encoded value is equivalent
to the original encoded value after transliteration.

My main concern is that the equality matching rule may not always be
adequately strong enough for this purpose. An example of this problem is the
caseIgnoreMatch matching rule. This would allow the server to change the
case of string values. This changes more than just the encoding of the value
- the abstract value is changed as well.

In this example, my belief is that the intent of choosing that equality
matching rule was limited to comparison of value assertions (to identify
duplicate values or searching for values) - but was not intended to allow
the server to substitute "equivalent" values.

My original proposal was intended to modify the text to say that although
value encodings may be modified, the abstract value itself cannot be
changed. However, if there is a need to have text that tells a server how to
validate values after transliterations, I suggest adding a table that
identifies a suitable matching rule for each syntax (or role that into the
syntax definition in which case the DirectoryString syntax text should be
updated).

Chris.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:20:18 -0800

At 12:09 PM 2/13/2003, Christopher Oliva wrote:
>My original proposal was intended to modify the text to say that although value encodings may be modified, the abstract value itself cannot be changed.

So, you are proposing transliteration would be disallowed.
I believe the consensus of the WG is that transliteration
should continue to be allowed.

>However, if there is a need to have text that tells a server how to validate values after transliterations, I suggest adding a table that identifies a suitable matching rule for each syntax (or role that into the syntax definition in which case the DirectoryString syntax text should be updated).

Except for stating a general minimum requirement, what you
propose is what the current approach offers:  per syntax
value preservation rules.  As you don't appear to be
arguing that general minimum is too loose, I don't see how
your table suggestion changes any of the implementation
requirements.

Kurt