Re: Revised Matched Values Draft

["David Chadwick" <d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk>]

Date sent:      	Sat, 01 Jul 2000 23:05:21 -0700
To:             	d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk
From:           	"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject:        	Re: Revised Matched Values Draft
Copies to:      	ietf-ldapext@netscape.com

> Another comment:
> >If the server supports this control, the server MUST make use of the
> >control as follows:
> >
> >(1) The Search Filter is first executed in order to determine 
> >which entries satisfy the Search criteria. The control has no 
> >impact on this step.
> >
> >(2) If the typesOnly parameter of the Search Request is TRUE, 
> >the control has no effect and the Search Request SHOULD be 
> >processed as if the control had not been specified.
> >
> >(3) If the attributes parameter of the Search Request consists 
> >of a list containing only the attribute with OID "1.1" 
> >(specifying that no attributes are to be returned), the control has
> >no effect and the Search Request SHOULD be processed as if the
> >control had not been specified.
> 
> This step seems unnecessary.

Agreed but I would rather keep it in, as it removes any ambiguity, 
and in the future someone is sure to ask "what about an attribute of 
1.1?". Whilst you can argue that the clause is covered by the 
preceding one, this just makes sure it is crystal clear.

> 
> 
> >(4) For each attribute listed in the attributes parameter of the
> >Search Request, the server MUST apply the control as follows:
> >
> >i) Every attribute value that evaluates TRUE against one or 
> >more elements of the ValuesReturnFilter is placed in the 
> >SearchResultEntry.
> >ii) Every attribute value that evaluates FALSE or undefined 
> >against all elements of the ValuesReturnFilter is not 
> >placed in the SearchResultEntry. An attribute that has no 
> >values selected is returned with an empty set of vals.
> 
> How is the control applied if no attribute list is provided or "*" is
> in the list.  I would assume, in both cases, that all user attributes
> contain in entry would be evaluated (per step 4) as if they were
> explicitly listed.

Correct. I have added a note to this effect.

David

> 
> 


***************************************************

David Chadwick
IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel +44 161 295 5351  Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile +44 790 167 0359
Email D.W.Chadwick@salford.ac.uk
Home Page  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Understanding X.500  http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
Entrust key validation string MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J

***************************************************