Subject: filter-05 comments

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:14:26 +0100

In section 5 (LDAP Search Filter Definition), the Filter and
SubstringFilter definitions do not match those in [Protocol].

In section 6 (String Search Filter Definition), "section 1.3
(Common ABNF Productions) of [Models]" should be section 1.4.

Section 7 (Examples):

This paragraph seems to have been garbled:

>   The third example illustrates the use of the ":dn" notation to
>   indicate that matching rule "2.4.6.8.10" should be used when making
>   comparisons,

No, the ":2.4.6.8.10" notation indicates that.

>   and that the attributes of an entry's distinguished name
>   should be considered part of the entry when evaluating the match.

Finally,

>   The sixth and final example demonstrates assertion of a BER encoded
>   value.

How?  It's no different from the fourth example, except for the
numericoid.  Does a numericoid in a string filter indicate BER?
If so, the document should say so.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:03:40 -0500

> (Common ABNF Productions) of [Models]" should be section 1.4.

OK.  Cross document references are hard to keep up with... thanks for 
catching these two.

> No, the ":2.4.6.8.10" notation indicates that.

Right; I am not sure what happened but I will fix that paragraph.

> If so, the document should say so.

No, the description of the example is somewhat misleading.  I am not 
sure the example is very valuable.  It does show use of an OID instead 
of an attribute name.

-Mark

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:42:44 +0100

> sure the example is very valuable.  It does show use of an OID instead 

An OID example is good.  I suggest you fix the description.  And
maybe use (some) unescaped characters in the example, so it can't be
read as implying that OIDs require escaped characters.

-- 
Hallvard