--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter-08.txt
- From: Mark Smith <mcs@pearlcrescent.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:47:49 -0500
- Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
- Delivered-to: mcs@murdock.dreamhost.com
- In-reply-to: <41879E43.7080302@pearlcrescent.com>
- References: <200410252003.QAA29252@ietf.org> <6.1.2.0.0.20041025133504.033605a0@127.0.0.1> <6.1.2.0.0.20041029153144.02effdb0@127.0.0.1> <41879E43.7080302@pearlcrescent.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
Mark Smith wrote:
... lessorequal = LANGLE EQUALS extensible = attr [dnattrs] [matchingrule] COLON EQUALS assertionvalue / [dnattrs] matchingrule COLON EQUALS assertionvalue / COLON EQUALS assertionvalue
The grouping notation should be used here to improve clarity. That is, ( ... ) / ( ... ) / ( ... ). As presented, it appears that ":=value" would be a valid extensible production.
[mcs] Agreed. I will add the ()s.
There is one more issue here which came to me as I was editing the document: Filter-08 *does* specify that ":=value" is a valid extensible production. I think that is simply an error and that the third option within the extensible production should be removed (it was introduced by me between the -01 and -02 revisions more than 2 years ago). Section 4.5.1 (Search Request) of [Protocol] disallows this:
If the matchingRule field is absent, the type field MUST be present, and an equality match is performed for that type.
As does 2251. Which makes perfect sense.
-Mark
--- End Message ---