[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Integer syntax and ordering rule in OpenLDAP 2.0.x and 2.1.x
- To: openldap-software <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
- Subject: Integer syntax and ordering rule in OpenLDAP 2.0.x and 2.1.x
- From: Sergio Andreozzi <sergio.andreozzi@cnaf.infn.it>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:19:26 +0200
- Organization: INFN-CNAF
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
Hello,
I'm working with an OpenLDAP-based product relying on version 2.0.22
(Globus MDS). For this, I've implemented a schema that uses the
following integer definition when needed:
http://www.globus.org/mds2-alpha/schema.html
attributetype ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.3536.2.3.4.1
NAME 'releasebeta'
EQUALITY integerMatch
ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
SINGLE-VALUE)
Since, in OpenLDAP 2.0.x there is no implementation for
integerOrderingMatch ordering rule, the Globus proposal is to use the
caseIgnoreOrderingMatch and this seems to work fine.
Now I've to deal with a mixed system where 2.0.x and 2.1.x openldap
versions have to coexist. The problem I'm facing is that the integer
definition works for the first, but not for the second, therefore I
cannot distribute the same schema.
The error that I get when loading the schema in the 2.1.x version is
-> AttributeType inappropriate matching rule: "caseIgnoreOrderingMatch"
If I change the ordering rule to integerOrderingMatch, it works for the
second, but not for the first.
My question is:
1. can you recommend any integer definition with ordering support that
works for both OpenLDAP 2.0.x and 2.1.x versions?
2. if this is not possible, what does happen if I distribute two
different versions for the schema, one for OpenLDAP 2.0.x and another
one for OpenLDAP 2.1.x?
3. there is a simple patch for OpenLDAP 2.0.22 that introduces the
support for integerOrderingMatch? I guess something from
http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/servers/slapd/schema_init.c.diff?r1=1.210&r2=1.211&hideattic=1&sortbydate=0&f=h
Thanks,
Sergio
REF:
1. the RFC 2252 defines a set of core attribute syntax and matching
rules, among these for inequality filters like ordering, there is the
caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2252.txt
it seems that this does not define any matching rules for integers
2. the RFC 3698 introduces the integerOrderingMatch matching rule and
this is implemented in the openldap 2.1.*
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3698.txt
--
Sergio Andreozzi
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare - CNAF
Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2
40127 BOLOGNA
ITALY
Tel +39 051 609 2860
Fax +39 051 609 2746
E-mail : sergio.andreozzi@cnaf.infn.it
Website: www.cnaf.infn.it/~sergio