Re: CIM24 schema tweaks

[<rmoats@coreon.net>]

>> It looks like the dlmHelperRefTo... should actually be: 
dlm...HelperRef.
>> This must have happen when applying a "new" naming 
convention to the
>> attributes type descriptions, but did not to modify their 
references in the
>> object class descriptions.
>> 
>> Can the DMTF team confirm this?

I can confirm that... they should be ..HelperRef,
but in editing the document we got them out of sync.

>I guessed the same. I substituted the dlm...HelperRef attrs 
in the 
>attachment to my initial message.
>
>I've spotted another potential difficulty with the schema of 
DSP0117.
>
>See this description:
>
>attributetype    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.412.100.1.2.1
>     NAME 'orderedCimKeys'
>     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE
>     EQUALITY octetStringMatch
>   )
>
>The matching rule syntax does not match the attribute's 
syntax. This 
>must be corrected.

Well, as an editor, I get to play the "no complaints without
making a suggestion" card.  What do you suggest as the
equality match?  Based on my reading of the X.500-series and
LDAP RFCs the only option for Directory Strings is 
caseIgnoreMatch, and I'm not at all comfortable with
declaring that as the matching rule for a syntax that holds
UTF-8 strings.  

Actually, the more I think about this, I think this is a 
bigger issue than just Policy, so I'm cross posting to
ldapext and the newly minted ldapbis to see what those
folks can add.

Ryan Moats