Subject: Extensible match in protocol and filter darfts

From: "Vithalprasad Gaitonde" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 02:32:10 -0700

There seems to be a contradiction on the extensible match filter between
the protocol and filter drafts.
Protocol draft in 4.5.1 on extensible match says "If the matching rule
field is absent, the type field MUST be present, and the equality match
is performed for that type".
The filter draft in 7 (examples) gives an extensible match example of
(:=Fred Filtstone) and says
"The seventh and final example is a filter that should be applied to
   any attribute (since both the attr and matching rule have been
   omitted)."
which is in contradiction to the protocol draft which mandates that at
least attr type or matching rule be present.

May  be its a good idea to reference the protocol draft in the
explanantion of examples section of filter draft as the semantics of the
filter are governed by the protocol draft.
Regards,
Prasad

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark C Smith)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:22 -0500

> filter are governed by the protocol draft.

I am not sure we need an explicit reference to the protocol document in 
that section, but I will definitely remove this particular example from 
the filter document (it is not in RFC 2254). Thanks for catching this error.

-Mark