Subject: Predicates in SLP vs. LDAP

From: Evan Hughes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:24:04 -0400 (EDT)

According to RFC 2608: 

"An incoming request term MUST have the same type as the attribute in a
registration in order to match".

I assume this to be a simple TRUE/FALSE pairing, but according to the LDAP
RFC (2251):

"a filter is evaluated to either "TRUE", "FALSE" or "Undefined""

 The only impact of the "Undefined" value that springs immediately to
(my) mind is how greedy the SA/DA is in matching: should a match occur on
Undefined and TRUE, or only TRUE?

e

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:52:23 -0400

Ok, I agree. This is what Sun's implementation does.

		jak
>On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, James Kempf wrote:
>> Given the restricted set of LDAP logical operators that SLP supports,
>> I can't see an instance where a predicate would ever evaluate to
>> undefined. I think that only covers user defined operators, which we
>> don't have in SLP.
>> 
>> But if you have an example, please post it.
>
>   I was thinking of performing a non-presence operation on a tag that
>doesn't exist. According to LDAPv3, this should result in an Undefined
>(which, for boolean searches is treated as a false). I don't beleive RFC
>2608 counters this. This only matters in a simple search such as
>"(tree<=forest)", where value is directly returned to the UA/SA. 
>
>  Since I've just implemented a search filter that has only boolean
>values, I think that such situations should be treated as a false. =)
>
>e  
>
>> 
>> 		jak
>> >
>> > According to RFC 2608: 
>> >