Re: Selecting matching rule for compare operation?

[Pierangelo Masarati <ando@sys-net.it>]

Pierangelo Masarati wrote:

> Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but (unless the compare operation is to 
> > be considered obsolete) there's a need for flexibility in performing 
> > comparisons, e.g. a mech to select appropriate matching rules when 
> > asserting values.
> >
> > Scenario: want to know if a server supports a certain control; 
> > supportedControl doesn't define an EQUALITY rule; however, it's 
> > syntax is OID.
> >
> > Quick'n'(not so)dirty: ldapsearch -b "" -s base 
> > "(supportedControl:objectIdentifierMatch:=<OID>)" # if exactly one 
> > entry is returned, the DSA supports the control
> >
> > Clean (would be) solution: ldapcompare ""  
> > "supportedControl/objectIdentifierMatch:<OID>" # compareTrue if value 
> > exists according to specified matchingRule
> >
> > Is there a better/more rfc-compliant way (other than defining an 
> > EQUALITY rule for that attribute)?
>
>
> After a bit more reading I found the "assert" control, so that: 
> ldapcompare 
> -e\!"assert=(supportedControl:objectIdentifierMatch:=1.2.840.113556.1.4.1413)" 
> "" "objectClass:top" yields the expected result.  However, at this 
> point I don't much see the difference between this and the first 
> solution listed above.  In some sense, this tells me that the 
> "compare" operation is dying...

...moreover, this would set a chicken'n'egg problem when trying to 
assess whether the "assert" control is supported or not by the DSA ;)

p.




   SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497