Re: Attributes with no equality matching rule

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

Hmmm....  I'm not sure if we just missed 12.4.5, or what, but I do
think we likely do need to (re)consider whether the language in
[Models] is appropriate in face of this.

At 11:19 PM 2/26/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Should the drafts conform to X.500 in this, or should they stay the
>way they are?

Well, given the RFC 2251's "MUST act in accordance with X.500"
language as well as the likely hood that multiple implementations
are acting in accordance with 12.4.5, I'm cannot see good reason
to adopt text (such as that in the current I-D) which is counter
12.4.5.

>Or - maybe implementations SHOULD behave as stated today, but MAY behave
>like X.500?  Otherwise I think LDAP-X.500 gateways are in trouble.

I think it needs to be one way or the other. Otherwise clients
designed for one way won't interoperate properly with servers
designed for the other way.

Off hand, I think we need to revert to X.500 semantics unless
there is a very good reason to not to.  I don't see one.

Kurt