I have noticed that in the openldap system I am using, the schema has a missing syntax. This syntax is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58" ; "Substring Assertion". This is referenced in matching types using partial matching of strings (exactsubstringsmatch, numericStringSubstringsMatch, ...). I am fairly new to these subjects and do not understand fully how they operate.
Is there a way to correct this? Are the syntaxes and matching types specified in a way that can be modified dynamically?
-Nikkos
Nik Svoboda wrote:
I have noticed that in the openldap system I am using, the schema has a missing syntax. This syntax is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58" ; "Substring Assertion". This is referenced in matching types using partial matching of strings (exactsubstringsmatch, numericStringSubstringsMatch, ...). I am fairly new to these subjects and do not understand fully how they operate.
What do you mean which "matching types"? "Matching rules" or "attribute types"?
Is there a way to correct this?
Depends on what you really want to achieve. Can you tell us? Looking into RFC 2252 and RFC 3698 I cannot imagine what you want.
Are the syntaxes and matching types specified in a way that can be modified dynamically?
Syntaxes and their matching rules have to be coded in C. There's no dynamic configuration for these.
Ciao, Michael.
Michael Ströder wrote:
Nik Svoboda wrote:
I have noticed that in the openldap system I am using, the schema has a missing syntax. This syntax is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58" ; "Substring Assertion".
According to CVS, Substring Assertion was added to OpenLDAP on 2007-May-17. Your version of OpenLDAP must be extremely old.
This is referenced in matching types using partial matching of strings (exactsubstringsmatch, numericStringSubstringsMatch, ...). I am fairly new to these subjects and do not understand fully how they operate.
What do you mean which "matching types"? "Matching rules" or "attribute types"?
Is there a way to correct this?
Depends on what you really want to achieve. Can you tell us? Looking into RFC 2252 and RFC 3698 I cannot imagine what you want.
Are the syntaxes and matching types specified in a way that can be modified dynamically?
Syntaxes and their matching rules have to be coded in C. There's no dynamic configuration for these.
Not yet, I suppose. Eventually, in Forth. http://www.openldap.org/software/roadmap.html
Howard Chu wrote:
Michael Ströder wrote:
Nik Svoboda wrote:
I have noticed that in the openldap system I am using, the schema has a missing syntax. This syntax is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58" ; "Substring Assertion".
According to CVS, Substring Assertion was added to OpenLDAP on 2007-May-17. Your version of OpenLDAP must be extremely old.
Maybe he asked because it's not listed in the subschema subentry. Don't know whether that would be useful though.
Ciao, Michael.
Michael Ströder wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
Michael Ströder wrote:
Nik Svoboda wrote:
I have noticed that in the openldap system I am using, the schema hasa missing syntax. This syntax is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58" ; "Substring Assertion".
According to CVS, Substring Assertion was added to OpenLDAP on 2007-May-17. Your version of OpenLDAP must be extremely old.
Looks like a typo in my original email. 2000-May-17, i.e., it would have been in everything from OpenLDAP 2.0 onward.
Maybe he asked because it's not listed in the subschema subentry. Don't know whether that would be useful though.
Hm, interesting. It's not explicitly hidden in the source. (Nor would there be any reason to, since it's part of the core LDAPv3 spec.) Perhaps someone should file an ITS on it.
Howard Chu wrote:
Michael Ströder wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
Michael Ströder wrote:
Nik Svoboda wrote:
I have noticed that in the openldap system I am using, theschema has a missing syntax. This syntax is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58" ; "Substring Assertion".
According to CVS, Substring Assertion was added to OpenLDAP on 2007-May-17. Your version of OpenLDAP must be extremely old.
Looks like a typo in my original email. 2000-May-17, i.e., it would have been in everything from OpenLDAP 2.0 onward.
Maybe he asked because it's not listed in the subschema subentry. Don't know whether that would be useful though.
Hm, interesting. It's not explicitly hidden in the source. (Nor would there be any reason to, since it's part of the core LDAPv3 spec.) Perhaps someone should file an ITS on it.
/bin/done
http://www.openldap.org/its/index.cgi?findid=5399
Ciao, Michael.
openldap-technical@openldap.org
-
Howard Chu -
Michael Ströder -
Nik Svoboda