[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Comparable and replaceable fax numbers
- To: openldap-technical@openldap.org
- Subject: Comparable and replaceable fax numbers
- From: Sean Burford <unix.gurus@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:34:55 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=iezejFD/79SE5mty3acshw6BFvJXUUkZsMCRaO28Ecw=; b=eonW3VTz+wQGbkAw2gZYETY9+k9bm4gUQN4EFigQJruVWJttmfcOvgnRYGXuM7JbXV 9LXBWXQPwSFXWNSDds+NJh7118pkKjYsTJtHjdyc+pl8SYU0z/GuilN/Y8DgYm5Evvm+ cNjlG/MS3H5IyVK48LMktAIjR+DRkN43xjU/U=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=UTkzO7sul8JPLX28ErgbykFgTHqEREwttJ8JwWtpAonKN6EuKWWiRRf0xv6a9Xu6OF GcGvdQGJjkgNt+NGmWQ1VCPbuNWsY6jSYJ5mbgR1B4rxGkGwGM03LWEH9tIXxx8DWBSR daETKsXZlc5A8PHzGos5GhUbFIKfVYqDjDxYI=
Hi,
On my servers I've redefined facsimileTelephoneNumber as a telephoneNumber:
attributetype ( 2.5.4.23 NAME ( 'facsimileTelephoneNumber' 'fax' )
DESC 'RFC2256: Facsimile (Fax) Telephone Number'
SUP telephoneNumber )
This requires reimporting the database since the normalisation changes, but it adds comparison rules to fax numbers (allowing comparison and replacement of them):
Before:
ldapcompare -x uid=person1234,dc=example,dc=com facsimiletelephonenumber::KzEoNTU1KS01NTUtNTU1NQ==
Compare Result: Inappropriate matching (18)
Additional info: inappropriate matching request
UNDEFINED
After:
ldapcompare -x uid=person1234,dc=example,dc=com facsimiletelephonenumber::KzEoNTU1KS01NTUtNTU1NQ==
TRUE
Is there any reason to follow the RFC in this case? The RFC itself doesn't make a good argument for or against fax numbers having a separate syntax with no matching rules.
--
Thanks,
Sean Burford