On 9/28/18 10:14 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Friday, September 28, 2018 2:10 PM -0700 Christopher Paul > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes that does help. Thank you. So now then based on our understanding >> here, do you agree then that the best solution here is to update the >> schema and then make sure the data is normalized, via export/import aka >> slapcat/slapadd, and subsequent data manipulations (assuming the >> feasibility) as needed? > > As long as it's not an RFC defined schema, then yes, I would suggest > modifying it to suit your needs and then exporting/importing the data. > However, I would keep this in mind for any applications you're > developing if they will be using any RFC defined schema that do not have > matching rules defined to ensure they can handle this case correctly.
Thus I'd consider any attribute type description with non-binary syntax but without EQUALITY matching rule to be worth an errata for this RFC. It's a real pity that we didn't manage to resurrect ldapext WG. This would be also a useful work item. Ciao, Michael.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
