Re: New text: Attributes with no equality matching rule

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 01:09 PM 3/10/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:

[Models] 2.3 (Structure of an Entry):

>   No two values of an attribute may be equivalent.  Two values are
>   considered equivalent only if they would match according to the
>   equality matching rule of the attribute type.  If the attribute
>   type is defined with no equality matching rule, two values are      
>   equivalent if and only if they are identical.  

Fine.

>>it should probably be mentioned
>>somewhere that LDAP differs from X.501(1993) section 12.4.5a in that it
>>can perform syntax checking for attributes without EQUALITY matching
>>rules.
> 
> I was noting that I did not make add a specific statement about
> syntax statement as section 2.5.4 already said:
>   Attribute values conform to the defined syntax of the attribute.
>
> If you could offer specific wording to call out the difference,
> I'd appreciate it.  Right now, all the wording I've thought of
> is a bit too intrusive.

Never mind, such a statement about a single difference seems rather
pointless.  A section with a list of significant differences from X.500
among the X.500-features that LDAP supports would be useful, but I'm not
volunteering to write it:-)

[Models] 2.5.4 (Attribute Values):

> Suggest:
>    Only attributes whose types have an equality matching rule
>    and whose descriptions have no options can be used for naming.
> 
> or it may be better to reword this as two sentences, each of
> which excludes a set of attributes.

The single sentence looks fine to me.

-- 
Hallvard