Subject: RE: matching rules for directoryString [was: Re: CIM24 schema tweaks]

From: "Robert Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:48:48 -0500

Yes, there's going to be an -09 version.  Does this
mean we also need to add a reference to X.520 in the
References section?

Regards,
Bob

Bob Moore
IBM Networking Software
+1-919-254-4436
[email-masked]

"Ryan Moats" <[email-masked]>@www.dmtf.org on 12/05/2000 10:21:36 AM

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   "Larry S. Bartz" <[email-masked]>
cc:   "Quevedo, Felix" <[email-masked]>, "IETF Policy WG LIST"
      <[email-masked]>
Subject:  RE: matching rules for directoryString [was: Re: CIM24 schema
      tweaks]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

Having looked at the relevant section, I am MUCH more comfortable
with this than with caseIgnoreMatch.

I think caseExactMatch should be used for

- orderedCimKeys in the 2.4 Mapping
- policyKeywords, policyGroupName, policyRuleName, policyConditionName,
policyActionName, policyInstanceName, policyRepositoryName in the PCLS
(Hey Bob, there's going to be a -09 isn't there ;-)

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Larry S. Bartz
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 7:04 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Quevedo, Felix; IETF Policy WG LIST; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: matching rules for directoryString [was: Re: CIM24 schema
tweaks]

[email-masked] wrote:
.[snip]
> What do you suggest as the
> equality match?  Based on my reading of the X.500-series and
> LDAP RFCs the only option for Directory Strings is
> caseIgnoreMatch, and I'm not at all comfortable with
> declaring that as the matching rule for a syntax that holds
> UTF-8 strings.
[snip]

I'm reading X.501 and X.520 from
ftp://ftp.bull.com/pub/OSIdirectory/4thEditionTexts/ (hurry for your
copy). Although these are drafts from the 4th edition of the X.500
series, it does not appear that the sections which apply to this
immediate issue are new or different from current/previous documents.

X.501 requires that the assertion syntax of the matching rule and
the syntax of attributes to which the matching rule is applied
must be equivalent. See section 13.5.

X.520 defines a caseExactMatch rule which applies to directoryString
attributes. See section 6.1.4.

Section 8 of RFC2252 does not mention a caseExactMatch rule which
applies to directoryString attributes. But neither does it appear that
section 8 was intended to describe the entire universe of allowable
or appropriate matching rules. Nothing in RFC2252's section 8 precludes
a Directory implementation from supporting matching rules beyond those
which are enumerated.

Section 3.3 of RFC2251 asserts LDAP's relationship to X.500 and the
requirement for LDAP servers to support the X.500 data and service
models.

Based on these facts, think it is reasonable to specify caseExactMatch
for directoryString attributes. Further, I think it is reasonable to
expect that Directory implementations will support it.

Also see http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/2.5.13.5.html

Note that the specification of caseExactMatch for directoryString
attributes did not prevent RFCs 2713 and 2714 from obtaining.

--
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
# Larry Bartz                           |                              |
#  [email-masked]      | Ooo, ooo,                    |
#                                       | Ooo, ooo, oooooo!            |
#                                       | I've got a gnu attitude!     |
#  voice (317) 226-7060                 |                              |
#  FAX   (317) 226-6378                 |                              |
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|

---

From: "Ryan Moats" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:24:09 -0600

Wouldn't be a bad idea at that :-)  I'm not sure what the exact
relevant information have. My guess would be

ITU, "Information Technology - Open System Interconnection - The Directory:
Selected Attribute Types," X.520 (11/93), 1995.

But I think I have an old copy.

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Robert Moore
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:49 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Larry S. Bartz; Quevedo, Felix; IETF Policy WG LIST
Subject: RE: matching rules for directoryString [was: Re: CIM24 schema
tweaks]

Regards,
Bob

Bob Moore
IBM Networking Software
+1-919-254-4436
[email-masked]

Ryan

-----Original Message-----

[email-masked] wrote:
.[snip]
[snip]