Subject: A tricky matched values problem

From: "David Chadwick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:17:28 +0100

Thomas Salter providing the following filter:

(OR(AND(mail=[email-masked])(telephoneNumber=47))(cn=
Sean*))

to an entry containing the following attributes.

cn: Sean Mullan
mail: [email-masked]
mail: [email-masked]
telephoneNumber: +1 781 442 0926
telephoneNumber: 555-9999

As you can see, the overall filter is true, the AND is false, but the 
mail attribute value matches true. The question is "does matched 
ValuesOnly apply to the mail attribute or not". ie. should one or two 
mail attribute values be returned.

On the FOR side (one returned value), we have that the AVA was 
true,
On the AGAINST side, we have that the AVA did not contribute to 
the overall filter matching true.

My first reaction was to say that only one mail value should be 
returned, but whilst drafting the proposed textual addition to X.500 I 
have started to change my mind. 

What does anyone else think.

David

***************************************************

David Chadwick
IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel +44 161 295 5351  Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile +44 790 167 0359
Email [email-masked]
Home Page  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Understanding X.500  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
Entrust key validation string MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J

***************************************************

---

From: Anthony Hodson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:48:26 +0100

Hi, David! Erik!!

The solution to this which is given in the FDAM says (to counter this
kind of problem):

"The matchedValuesOnly argument indicates that certain attribute values
are to be omitted from the returned entry information. Specifically,
where an attribute to be returned is multi-valued, and some but not all
of the values of that attribute contributed to the search filter, in its
last effective form (i.e. taking relaxed matching rules into account)
returning TRUE via filter items other than present, then the values that
did not so contribute are omitted from the returned entry information.
An attribute value is said to contribute to the search filter if it is
matched by any non-negated filter item in the filter (see 7.8.1),
whether or not omission of that item would have led to a different
outcome in the selection of the containing entry."

Does this resolve the problem?

All the best

Anthony

In message <[email-masked]>, David Chadwick
<[email-masked]> writes
>What does anyone else think.

Anthony Hodson <[email-masked]>      X   X    DDD
XdotD Associates                             X X  O  D  D
Spring Lanes House, Holly Spring Lane         X  OOO D   D  
Bracknell, Berks RG12 2JL, ENGLAND           X X  O  D  D
Tel: +44 1344 310665                        X   X    DDD
Fax: +44 870 056 8242