Re: Models: Matching Rule Uses

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 01:58 PM 2/12/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>At 02:34 PM 1/30/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>[Models] says:
>>>
>>>> 4.1.4. Matching Rule Uses
>>>>
>>>>  A matching rule use lists the attributes which are suitable for use
>>>>  with an extensible matching rule
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I just noticed: I think that should be "an extensibleMatch filter".
>I can't find a definition of what extensible matching rules are.
>Should have noticed that after Ron Ramsay's response.

I concur.

>>> Please add something like "(in addition to those uses expressed in
>>> AttributeType descriptions)".
>> 
>> Such an addition could be viewed as calling for the
>> publication of non-extensible matching rules in matching rule use
>> attribute.
>
>OK, how about:
>
>  "extensibleMatch filters can also use matching rules from an
>  attribute type's AttributeType description."

I don't think that's correct.  Listing a rule in
an attribute type description doesn't imply that
rule can be used in an extensibleMatch filter.

>At least that's what you said in a private mail earlier.  Or if
>I misundersood, add an explicit note about the opposite instead.

I could have been confused...

I can think of a number of possible opposites, but none
make sense to me.  Please clarify.


>> Whether the rule can be used in other contexts (such
>> as an equality rule for a type) is not relevant here.
>
>True, but that's not what I'm talking about.
>
>Also, am I right in assuming that a matching rule use may only
>list attributes with a syntax which satisfies the restrictions
>specified in the matching rule defintion in [Syntaxes] 5.2.*?
>If not, something needs to be said about what these restrictions
>mean.

I'm not sure which restrictions you refer to here.  Can you
be more specific?

>Finally, it must be specified which attributes a Matching Rule
>may be used with if it has no corresponding Matching Rule Use.

Not publishing a rule use (or any schema element)
only means the server doesn't know that use (or isn't willing
to let you know it knows that use).

Maybe 4.4 addition we previously discussed should say:
  Clients SHOULD NOT assume a published subschema is complete nor
  assume the server supports all of the schema elements it publishes 
  nor assume the server does not support any elements it did not publish.

Kurt