Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and X.500 Component Matching Rules
RFC 3687
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(February 2004; No errata)
Was draft-legg-ldapext-component-matching (individual in app area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Steven Legg | ||
| Last updated | 2018-07-18 | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 3687 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Ted Hardie | ||
| IESG note | Depending on Subentry Specification for LDAP. | ||
| Send notices to | <s.legg@trl.telstra.com.au> | ||
Network Working Group S. Legg
Request for Comments: 3687 Adacel Technologies
Category: Standards Track February 2004
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
and X.500 Component Matching Rules
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The syntaxes of attributes in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) or X.500 directory range from simple data types, such as text
string, integer, or boolean, to complex structured data types, such
as the syntaxes of the directory schema operational attributes.
Matching rules defined for the complex syntaxes usually only provide
the most immediately useful matching capability. This document
defines generic matching rules that can match any user selected
component parts in an attribute value of any arbitrarily complex
attribute syntax.
Legg Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3687 LDAP and X.500 Component Matching Rules February 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. ComponentAssertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Component Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. Component Type Substitutions . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2. Referencing SET, SEQUENCE and CHOICE Components. 8
3.1.3. Referencing SET OF and SEQUENCE OF Components. . 9
3.1.4. Referencing Components of Parameterized Types. . 10
3.1.5. Component Referencing Example. . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.6. Referencing Components of Open Types . . . . . . 12
3.1.6.1. Open Type Referencing Example . . . . . 12
3.1.7. Referencing Contained Types. . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.7.1. Contained Type Referencing Example. . . 14
3.2. Matching of Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.1. Applicability of Existing Matching Rules . . . . 17
3.2.1.1. String Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.1.2. Telephone Number Matching . . . . . . . 17
3.2.1.3. Distinguished Name Matching . . . . . . 18
3.2.2. Additional Useful Matching Rules . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.2.1. The rdnMatch Matching Rule. . . . . . . 18
3.2.2.2. The presentMatch Matching Rule. . . . . 19
3.2.3. Summary of Useful Matching Rules . . . . . . . . 20
4. ComponentFilter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. The componentFilterMatch Matching Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Equality Matching of Complex Components. . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.1. The OpenAssertionType Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2. The allComponentsMatch Matching Rule . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.3. Deriving Component Equality Matching Rules . . . . . . . 27
6.4. The directoryComponentsMatch Matching Rule . . . . . . . 28
7. Component Matching Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
12. Intellectual Property Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
13. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
14. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Legg Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3687 LDAP and X.500 Component Matching Rules February 2004
1. Introduction
The structure or data type of data held in an attribute of a
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [7] or X.500 [19]
directory is described by the attribute's syntax. Attribute syntaxes
range from simple data types, such as text string, integer, or
boolean, to complex data types, for example, the syntaxes of the
directory schema operational attributes.
In X.500, the attribute syntaxes are explicitly described by Abstract
Show full document text