Re: matchingRuleUse / extensibleMatch

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:

> This is incorrect.  This implies that if the rule applies to
> X:
>         ( 1.1.1 NAME 'X' SYNTAX 1.1.0 )
> that Y:
>         ( 1.1.2 NAME 'Y' SUP X )
> need not listed.  Y should be listed in this case as
> if the rule applies to X it should apply to Y because Y is
> a subtype of X.  That is, the implementation is not excused
> from listing Y because it is subtype of some listed type.
> Instead, the server is obligated to list Y as the rule applies
> to subtypes of X.

Otherwise a schema-aware LDAP client evaluating 'matchingRuleUse' would 
also have to resolve attribute type inheritance for resolving matching 
rule use.

Glad to read this provided my understanding of your words is correct...

Ciao, Michael.

-- 
Michael Ströder
E-Mail: [email protected]
http://www.stroeder.com