Hi,<br><br>On my servers I&#39;ve redefined facsimileTelephoneNumber as a telephoneNumber:<br><br><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">attributetype ( 2.5.4.23 NAME ( &#39;facsimileTelephoneNumber&#39; &#39;fax&#39; )</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">

<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">        DESC &#39;RFC2256: Facsimile (Fax) Telephone Number&#39;</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">        SUP telephoneNumber )</span><br>

<br>This requires reimporting the database since the normalisation changes, but it adds comparison rules to fax numbers (allowing comparison and replacement of them):<br><br>Before:<br><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">ldapcompare -x uid=person1234,dc=example,dc=com facsimiletelephonenumber::KzEoNTU1KS01NTUtNTU1NQ==</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">

<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Compare Result: Inappropriate matching (18)</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">Additional info: inappropriate matching request</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">

<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">UNDEFINED</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><br>After:<br><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">ldapcompare -x uid=person1234,dc=example,dc=com facsimiletelephonenumber::KzEoNTU1KS01NTUtNTU1NQ==</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">

<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">TRUE</span><br><br>Is there any reason to follow the RFC in this case?  The RFC itself doesn&#39;t make a good argument for or against fax numbers having a separate syntax with no matching rules.<br>

<br>-- <br>Thanks,<br>Sean Burford<br>