[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: strange uniqueMemberMatch

To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>, steven.legg@adacel.com.au
Subject: Re: strange uniqueMemberMatch
From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:43:32 +0100
Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108110558.02312c88@127.0.0.1>
References: <HBF.20030104hp76@bombur.uio.no> <00ee01c2b53d$20d2beb0$a518200a@osmium.mtwav.adacel.com.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20030108110558.02312c88@127.0.0.1>

Any progress with this?  It's been a year now.  I asked before, but
I don't think anyone answered.

http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00027.html
http://www.OpenLDAP.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00029.html

At 08 Jan 2003, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>At 08:36 PM 1/5/2003, Steven Legg wrote:
>> The uniqueMemberMatch rule is an equality matching rule that is not
>> commutative, which causes problems in deciding whether attribute values
>> are equal or not when adding or deleting values. I've raised this with
>> the X.500 working group and I'm waiting to see how they resolve it.
>
> We likely should nudge them on this.  The current
> definition is, I think, problematic because uniqueMember
> is not single-valued.

-- 
Hallvard

Prev by Date: LDAPBIS @ IETF#59
Next by Date: DN draft and X.500
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread