Re: >= (greater or equal) and <= (lower or equal) operators in search filter

[Greg Matthews <gmatt@nerc.ac.uk>]

On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 07:59, Alexandre Garel wrote:
> > More to your question: Does the schema allow inequality filters on 
> > those attributes?
> >
> > --Quanah
> 
> Ok, I finally looked in RFC 2252 and found that my attribute must have 
> ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch. in their definition (which is not the 
> case as I have standard definition).
> Declaring the filter 'undefined' if it does not have the ORDER 
> directive  is also part of the specification.

I've just grepped through my schema files, most of which came as
standard with OpenLDAP-2.2.13 plus one or two others. There is only one
attribute in all the schema files with this ORDERING directive:

attributetype ( 2.5.4.46 NAME 'dnQualifier'
        DESC 'RFC2256: DN qualifier'
        EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
        ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
        SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
        SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 )

Is there no call for this sort of matching in filters then? Doesnt
anyone need to:

ldapsearch -x "(uidnumber>=1000)"

Is it considered breaking standard schema to add ORDERING rules into
them?

GREG

> Thanks
> Alex
> 
> >
> > -- 
> > Quanah Gibson-Mount
> > Principal Software Developer
> > ITSS/Shared Services
> > Stanford University
> > GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html
> >
-- 
Greg Matthews
iTSS Wallingford	01491 692445