[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (ITS#5608) additional info: modify/delete: postalAddress: no equality matching rule
michael@stroeder.com wrote:
> Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> Declarations of schema elements should be published as specified in
>> RFCs. [..] If caseIgnoreListMatch is not supported, than the
>> MatchingRule definition for caseIgnoreListMatch should not be
>> published.
>
> I suspected an answer like this. I've changed my code to also look up
> whether the matching rule description itself exists but loose subschema
> definitions like this makes it really hard to implement smarter
> schema-aware clients. :-/
>
> These kind of things would be interesting subjects of interop testing.
>
>> I note that the specification does allow publication of unimplemented
>> descriptions.
>
> Even worse. :-(
Aside from conformity of OpenLDAP's current behavior, I'd consider this
ITS as a request to finally implement that matching rule.
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
-----------------------------------
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172
Email: ando@sys-net.it
-----------------------------------