[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Unique identifiers for LDAP attributes
Date sent: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:37:33 -0700
To: "Jim Sermersheim" <JIMSE@novell.com>
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject: Re: Unique identifiers for LDAP attributes
Copies to: <d.w.chadwick@salford.ac.uk>, <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
> At 11:12 AM 7/13/00 -0600, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> >Though I agree with the general notion of moving toward the use of
> >unique OIDs, there's a minor flaw with this statement.
> >
> >objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch uses the OID syntax which can
> >either be a numericoid (1.2.3.4) or the descr form (cn), so it's
> >still usable with short names as it stands today.
>
> But note a minor flaw in your statement. A matchingRule should
> evaluate to Undefined if the attribute value doesn't conform
> to the defined attribute syntax. With an OID in the attribute
> value, the syntax is invalid, so the matchingRule is Undefined.
Now this could be the true meaning of the text that I said was
particularly hard to understand in 8.4. At least I can understand
what you have written and I agree with it
David
>
> Kurt
>
>
***************************************************
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
***************************************************