tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search

RFC 4517

 
 
 

Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules

Part 2 of 2, p. 25 to 53
Prev RFC Part

 


prevText      Top      Up      ToC       Page 25 
4.  Matching Rules

   Matching rules are used by directory implementations to compare
   attribute values against assertion values when performing Search and
   Compare operations [RFC4511].  They are also used when comparing a
   purported distinguished name [RFC4512] with the name of an entry.
   When modifying entries, matching rules are used to identify values to
   be deleted and to prevent an attribute from containing two equal
   values.

   Matching rules that are required for directory operation, or that are
   in common use, are specified in this section.

4.1.  General Considerations

   A matching rule is applied to attribute values through an
   AttributeValueAssertion or MatchingRuleAssertion [RFC4511].  The
   conditions under which an AttributeValueAssertion or
   MatchingRuleAssertion evaluates to Undefined are specified elsewhere
   [RFC4511].  If an assertion is not Undefined, then the result of the

Top      Up      ToC       Page 26 
   assertion is the result of applying the selected matching rule.  A
   matching rule evaluates to TRUE, and in some cases Undefined, as
   specified in the description of the matching rule; otherwise, it
   evaluates to FALSE.

   Each assertion contains an assertion value.  The definition of each
   matching rule specifies the syntax for the assertion value.  The
   syntax of the assertion value is typically, but not necessarily, the
   same as the syntax of the attribute values to which the matching rule
   may be applied.  Note that an AssertionValue in a SubstringFilter
   [RFC4511] conforms to the assertion syntax of the equality matching
   rule for the attribute type rather than to the assertion syntax of
   the substrings matching rule for the attribute type.  Conceptually,
   the entire SubstringFilter is converted into an assertion value of
   the substrings matching rule prior to applying the rule.

   The definition of each matching rule indicates the attribute syntaxes
   to which the rule may be applied, by specifying conditions the
   corresponding ASN.1 type of a candidate attribute syntax must
   satisfy.  These conditions are also satisfied if the corresponding
   ASN.1 type is a tagged or constrained derivative of the ASN.1 type
   explicitly mentioned in the rule description (i.e., ASN.1 tags and
   constraints are ignored in checking applicability), or is an
   alternative reference notation for the explicitly mentioned type.
   Each rule description lists, as examples of applicable attribute
   syntaxes, the complete list of the syntaxes defined in this document
   to which the matching rule applies.  A matching rule may be
   applicable to additional syntaxes defined in other documents if those
   syntaxes satisfy the conditions on the corresponding ASN.1 type.

   The description of each matching rule indicates whether the rule is
   suitable for use as the equality matching rule (EQUALITY), ordering
   matching rule (ORDERING), or substrings matching rule (SUBSTR) in an
   attribute type definition [RFC4512].

   Each matching rule is uniquely identified with an object identifier.
   The definition of a matching rule should not subsequently be changed.
   If a change is desirable, then a new matching rule with a different
   object identifier should be defined instead.

   Servers MAY implement the wordMatch and keywordMatch matching rules,
   but they SHOULD implement the other matching rules in Section 4.2.
   Servers MAY implement additional matching rules.

   Servers that implement the extensibleMatch filter SHOULD allow the
   matching rules listed in Section 4.2 to be used in the
   extensibleMatch filter and SHOULD allow matching rules to be used
   with all attribute types known to the server, where the assertion

Top      Up      ToC       Page 27 
   syntax of the matching rule is the same as the value syntax of the
   attribute.

   Servers MUST publish, in the matchingRules attribute, the definitions
   of matching rules referenced by values of the attributeTypes and
   matchingRuleUse attributes in the same subschema entry.  Other
   unreferenced matching rules MAY be published in the matchingRules
   attribute.

   If the server supports the extensibleMatch filter, then the server
   MAY use the matchingRuleUse attribute to indicate the applicability
   (in an extensibleMatch filter) of selected matching rules to
   nominated attribute types.

4.2.  Matching Rule Definitions

   Nominated character strings in assertion and attribute values are
   prepared according to the string preparation algorithms [RFC4518] for
   LDAP when evaluating the following matching rules:

      numericStringMatch,
      numericStringSubstringsMatch,
      caseExactMatch,
      caseExactOrderingMatch,
      caseExactSubstringsMatch,
      caseExactIA5Match,
      caseIgnoreIA5Match,
      caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch,
      caseIgnoreListMatch,
      caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch,
      caseIgnoreMatch,
      caseIgnoreOrderingMatch,
      caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch,
      directoryStringFirstComponentMatch,
      telephoneNumberMatch,
      telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch and
      wordMatch.

   The Transcode, Normalize, Prohibit, and Check bidi steps are the same
   for each of the matching rules.  However, the Map and Insignificant
   Character Handling steps depend on the specific rule, as detailed in
   the description of these matching rules in the sections that follow.

4.2.1.  bitStringMatch

   The bitStringMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Bit String
   syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Bit String
   syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is BIT STRING.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 28 
   If the corresponding ASN.1 type of the attribute syntax does not have
   a named bit list [ASN.1] (which is the case for the Bit String
   syntax), then the rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute
   value has the same number of bits as the assertion value and the bits
   match on a bitwise basis.

   If the corresponding ASN.1 type does have a named bit list, then
   bitStringMatch operates as above, except that trailing zero bits in
   the attribute and assertion values are treated as absent.

   The LDAP definition for the bitStringMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.16 NAME 'bitStringMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 )

   The bitStringMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.2.  booleanMatch

   The booleanMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Boolean
   syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Boolean syntax)
   whose corresponding ASN.1 type is BOOLEAN.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute value and the
   assertion value are both TRUE or both FALSE.

   The LDAP definition for the booleanMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.13 NAME 'booleanMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7 )

   The booleanMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.3.  caseExactIA5Match

   The caseExactIA5Match rule compares an assertion value of the IA5
   String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the IA5 String
   syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is IA5String.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the prepared attribute
   value character string and the prepared assertion value character
   string have the same number of characters and corresponding
   characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are not case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Handling step.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 29 
   The LDAP definition for the caseExactIA5Match rule is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.1 NAME 'caseExactIA5Match'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 )

   The caseExactIA5Match rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.4.  caseExactMatch

   The caseExactMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Directory
   String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Directory
   String, Printable String, Country String, or Telephone Number syntax)
   whose corresponding ASN.1 type is DirectoryString or one of the
   alternative string types of DirectoryString, such as PrintableString
   (the other alternatives do not correspond to any syntax defined in
   this document).

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the prepared attribute
   value character string and the prepared assertion value character
   string have the same number of characters and corresponding
   characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are not case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the caseExactMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.5 NAME 'caseExactMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

   The caseExactMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.5.  caseExactOrderingMatch

   The caseExactOrderingMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Directory String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the
   Directory String, Printable String, Country String, or Telephone
   Number syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is DirectoryString or
   one of its alternative string types.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if, in the code point
   collation order, the prepared attribute value character string
   appears earlier than the prepared assertion value character string;
   i.e., the attribute value is "less than" the assertion value.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 30 
   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are not case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the caseExactOrderingMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.6 NAME 'caseExactOrderingMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

   The caseExactOrderingMatch rule is an ordering matching rule.

4.2.6.  caseExactSubstringsMatch

   The caseExactSubstringsMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Substring Assertion syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g.,
   the Directory String, Printable String, Country String, or Telephone
   Number syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is DirectoryString or
   one of its alternative string types.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if (1) the prepared substrings
   of the assertion value match disjoint portions of the prepared
   attribute value character string in the order of the substrings in
   the assertion value, (2) an <initial> substring, if present, matches
   the beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and
   (3) a <final> substring, if present, matches the end of the prepared
   attribute value character string.  A prepared substring matches a
   portion of the prepared attribute value character string if
   corresponding characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value substrings for
   comparison, characters are not case folded in the Map preparation
   step, and only Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the
   Insignificant Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the caseExactSubstringsMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.7 NAME 'caseExactSubstringsMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )

   The caseExactSubstringsMatch rule is a substrings matching rule.

4.2.7.  caseIgnoreIA5Match

   The caseIgnoreIA5Match rule compares an assertion value of the IA5
   String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the IA5 String
   syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is IA5String.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 31 
   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the prepared attribute
   value character string and the prepared assertion value character
   string have the same number of characters and corresponding
   characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the caseIgnoreIA5Match rule is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.2 NAME 'caseIgnoreIA5Match'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 )

   The caseIgnoreIA5Match rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.8.  caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch

   The caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch rule compares an assertion value of
   the Substring Assertion syntax to an attribute value of a syntax
   (e.g., the IA5 String syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is
   IA5String.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if (1) the prepared substrings
   of the assertion value match disjoint portions of the prepared
   attribute value character string in the order of the substrings in
   the assertion value, (2) an <initial> substring, if present, matches
   the beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and
   (3) a <final> substring, if present, matches the end of the prepared
   attribute value character string.  A prepared substring matches a
   portion of the prepared attribute value character string if
   corresponding characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value substrings for
   comparison, characters are case folded in the Map preparation step,
   and only Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Handling step.

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.3 NAME 'caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )

   The caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch rule is a substrings matching rule.

4.2.9.  caseIgnoreListMatch

   The caseIgnoreListMatch rule compares an assertion value that is a
   sequence of strings to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the

Top      Up      ToC       Page 32 
   Postal Address syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is a SEQUENCE
   OF the DirectoryString ASN.1 type.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute value and the
   assertion value have the same number of strings and corresponding
   strings (by position) match according to the caseIgnoreMatch matching
   rule.

   In [X.520], the assertion syntax for this matching rule is defined to
   be:

      SEQUENCE OF DirectoryString {ub-match}

   That is, it is different from the corresponding type for the Postal
   Address syntax.  The choice of the Postal Address syntax for the
   assertion syntax of the caseIgnoreListMatch in LDAP should not be
   seen as limiting the matching rule to apply only to attributes with
   the Postal Address syntax.

   The LDAP definition for the caseIgnoreListMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.11 NAME 'caseIgnoreListMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 )

   The caseIgnoreListMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.10.  caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch

   The caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch rule compares an assertion value of
   the Substring Assertion syntax to an attribute value of a syntax
   (e.g., the Postal Address syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is a
   SEQUENCE OF the DirectoryString ASN.1 type.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the assertion value
   matches, per the caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch rule, the character string
   formed by concatenating the strings of the attribute value, except
   that none of the <initial>, <any>, or <final> substrings of the
   assertion value are considered to match a substring of the
   concatenated string which spans more than one of the original strings
   of the attribute value.

   Note that, in terms of the LDAP-specific encoding of the Postal
   Address syntax, the concatenated string omits the <DOLLAR> line
   separator and the escaping of "\" and "$" characters.

   The LDAP definition for the caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.12 NAME 'caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch'

Top      Up      ToC       Page 33 
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )

   The caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch rule is a substrings matching rule.

4.2.11.  caseIgnoreMatch

   The caseIgnoreMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Directory
   String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Directory
   String, Printable String, Country String, or Telephone Number syntax)
   whose corresponding ASN.1 type is DirectoryString or one of its
   alternative string types.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the prepared attribute
   value character string and the prepared assertion value character
   string have the same number of characters and corresponding
   characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the caseIgnoreMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.2 NAME 'caseIgnoreMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

   The caseIgnoreMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.12.  caseIgnoreOrderingMatch

   The caseIgnoreOrderingMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Directory String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the
   Directory String, Printable String, Country String, or Telephone
   Number syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is DirectoryString or
   one of its alternative string types.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if, in the code point
   collation order, the prepared attribute value character string
   appears earlier than the prepared assertion value character string;
   i.e., the attribute value is "less than" the assertion value.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the caseIgnoreOrderingMatch rule is:

Top      Up      ToC       Page 34 
      ( 2.5.13.3 NAME 'caseIgnoreOrderingMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

   The caseIgnoreOrderingMatch rule is an ordering matching rule.

4.2.13.  caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch

   The caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Substring Assertion syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g.,
   the Directory String, Printable String, Country String, or Telephone
   Number syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is DirectoryString or
   one of its alternative string types.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if (1) the prepared substrings
   of the assertion value match disjoint portions of the prepared
   attribute value character string in the order of the substrings in
   the assertion value, (2) an <initial> substring, if present, matches
   the beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and
   (3) a <final> substring, if present, matches the end of the prepared
   attribute value character string.  A prepared substring matches a
   portion of the prepared attribute value character string if
   corresponding characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value substrings for
   comparison, characters are case folded in the Map preparation step,
   and only Insignificant Space Handling is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.4 NAME 'caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )

   The caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch rule is a substrings matching rule.

4.2.14.  directoryStringFirstComponentMatch

   The directoryStringFirstComponentMatch rule compares an assertion
   value of the Directory String syntax to an attribute value of a
   syntax whose corresponding ASN.1 type is a SEQUENCE with a mandatory
   first component of the DirectoryString ASN.1 type.

   Note that the assertion syntax of this matching rule differs from the
   attribute syntax of attributes for which this is the equality
   matching rule.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 35 
   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the assertion value matches
   the first component of the attribute value using the rules of
   caseIgnoreMatch.

   The LDAP definition for the directoryStringFirstComponentMatch
   matching rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.31 NAME 'directoryStringFirstComponentMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

   The directoryStringFirstComponentMatch rule is an equality matching
   rule.  When using directoryStringFirstComponentMatch to compare two
   attribute values (of an applicable syntax), an assertion value must
   first be derived from one of the attribute values.  An assertion
   value can be derived from an attribute value by taking the first
   component of that attribute value.

4.2.15.  distinguishedNameMatch

   The distinguishedNameMatch rule compares an assertion value of the DN
   syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the DN syntax) whose
   corresponding ASN.1 type is DistinguishedName.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute value and the
   assertion value have the same number of relative distinguished names
   and corresponding relative distinguished names (by position) are the
   same.  A relative distinguished name (RDN) of the assertion value is
   the same as an RDN of the attribute value if and only if they have
   the same number of attribute value assertions and each attribute
   value assertion (AVA) of the first RDN is the same as the AVA of the
   second RDN with the same attribute type.  The order of the AVAs is
   not significant.  Also note that a particular attribute type may
   appear in at most one AVA in an RDN.  Two AVAs with the same
   attribute type are the same if their values are equal according to
   the equality matching rule of the attribute type.  If one or more of
   the AVA comparisons evaluate to Undefined and the remaining AVA
   comparisons return TRUE then the distinguishedNameMatch rule
   evaluates to Undefined.

   The LDAP definition for the distinguishedNameMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.1 NAME 'distinguishedNameMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 )

   The distinguishedNameMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 36 
4.2.16.  generalizedTimeMatch

   The generalizedTimeMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Generalized Time syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the
   Generalized Time syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is
   GeneralizedTime.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute value
   represents the same universal coordinated time as the assertion
   value.  If a time is specified with the minutes or seconds absent,
   then the number of minutes or seconds (respectively) is assumed to be
   zero.

   The LDAP definition for the generalizedTimeMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.27 NAME 'generalizedTimeMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 )

   The generalizedTimeMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.17.  generalizedTimeOrderingMatch

   The generalizedTimeOrderingMatch rule compares the time ordering of
   an assertion value of the Generalized Time syntax to an attribute
   value of a syntax (e.g., the Generalized Time syntax) whose
   corresponding ASN.1 type is GeneralizedTime.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute value
   represents a universal coordinated time that is earlier than the
   universal coordinated time represented by the assertion value.

   The LDAP definition for the generalizedTimeOrderingMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.28 NAME 'generalizedTimeOrderingMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 )

   The generalizedTimeOrderingMatch rule is an ordering matching rule.

4.2.18.  integerFirstComponentMatch

   The integerFirstComponentMatch rule compares an assertion value of
   the Integer syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the DIT
   Structure Rule Description syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is
   a SEQUENCE with a mandatory first component of the INTEGER ASN.1
   type.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 37 
   Note that the assertion syntax of this matching rule differs from the
   attribute syntax of attributes for which this is the equality
   matching rule.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the assertion value and the
   first component of the attribute value are the same integer value.

   The LDAP definition for the integerFirstComponentMatch matching rule
   is:

      ( 2.5.13.29 NAME 'integerFirstComponentMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 )

   The integerFirstComponentMatch rule is an equality matching rule.
   When using integerFirstComponentMatch to compare two attribute values
   (of an applicable syntax), an assertion value must first be derived
   from one of the attribute values.  An assertion value can be derived
   from an attribute value by taking the first component of that
   attribute value.

4.2.19.  integerMatch

   The integerMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Integer
   syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Integer syntax)
   whose corresponding ASN.1 type is INTEGER.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute value and the
   assertion value are the same integer value.

   The LDAP definition for the integerMatch matching rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.14 NAME 'integerMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 )

   The integerMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.20.  integerOrderingMatch

   The integerOrderingMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Integer syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Integer
   syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is INTEGER.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the integer value of the
   attribute value is less than the integer value of the assertion
   value.

   The LDAP definition for the integerOrderingMatch matching rule is:

Top      Up      ToC       Page 38 
      ( 2.5.13.15 NAME 'integerOrderingMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 )

   The integerOrderingMatch rule is an ordering matching rule.

4.2.21.  keywordMatch

   The keywordMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Directory
   String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Directory
   String syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is DirectoryString.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the assertion value
   character string matches any keyword in the attribute value.  The
   identification of keywords in the attribute value and the exactness
   of the match are both implementation specific.

   The LDAP definition for the keywordMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.33 NAME 'keywordMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

4.2.22.  numericStringMatch

   The numericStringMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Numeric String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the
   Numeric String syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is
   NumericString.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the prepared attribute
   value character string and the prepared assertion value character
   string have the same number of characters and corresponding
   characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are not case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   numericString Insignificant Character Handling is applied in the
   Insignificant Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the numericStringMatch matching rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.8 NAME 'numericStringMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36 )

   The numericStringMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 39 
4.2.23.  numericStringOrderingMatch

   The numericStringOrderingMatch rule compares an assertion value of
   the Numeric String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g.,
   the Numeric String syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is
   NumericString.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if, in the code point
   collation order, the prepared attribute value character string
   appears earlier than the prepared assertion value character string;
   i.e., the attribute value is "less than" the assertion value.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are not case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   numericString Insignificant Character Handling is applied in the
   Insignificant Character Handling step.

   The rule is identical to the caseIgnoreOrderingMatch rule except that
   all space characters are skipped during comparison (case is
   irrelevant as the characters are numeric).

   The LDAP definition for the numericStringOrderingMatch matching rule
   is:

      ( 2.5.13.9 NAME 'numericStringOrderingMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36 )

   The numericStringOrderingMatch rule is an ordering matching rule.

4.2.24.  numericStringSubstringsMatch

   The numericStringSubstringsMatch rule compares an assertion value of
   the Substring Assertion syntax to an attribute value of a syntax
   (e.g., the Numeric String syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is
   NumericString.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if (1) the prepared substrings
   of the assertion value match disjoint portions of the prepared
   attribute value character string in the order of the substrings in
   the assertion value, (2) an <initial> substring, if present, matches
   the beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and
   (3) a <final> substring, if present, matches the end of the prepared
   attribute value character string.  A prepared substring matches a
   portion of the prepared attribute value character string if
   corresponding characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are not case folded in the Map preparation step, and only

Top      Up      ToC       Page 40 
   numericString Insignificant Character Handling is applied in the
   Insignificant Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the numericStringSubstringsMatch matching
   rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.10 NAME 'numericStringSubstringsMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )

   The numericStringSubstringsMatch rule is a substrings matching rule.

4.2.25.  objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch

   The objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch rule compares an assertion
   value of the OID syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the
   Attribute Type Description, DIT Content Rule Description, LDAP Syntax
   Description, Matching Rule Description, Matching Rule Use
   Description, Name Form Description, or Object Class Description
   syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is a SEQUENCE with a mandatory
   first component of the OBJECT IDENTIFIER ASN.1 type.

   Note that the assertion syntax of this matching rule differs from the
   attribute syntax of attributes for which this is the equality
   matching rule.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the assertion value matches
   the first component of the attribute value using the rules of
   objectIdentifierMatch.

   The LDAP definition for the objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch
   matching rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.30 NAME 'objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 )

   The objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch rule is an equality matching
   rule.  When using objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch to compare two
   attribute values (of an applicable syntax), an assertion value must
   first be derived from one of the attribute values.  An assertion
   value can be derived from an attribute value by taking the first
   component of that attribute value.

4.2.26.  objectIdentifierMatch

   The objectIdentifierMatch rule compares an assertion value of the OID
   syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the OID syntax) whose
   corresponding ASN.1 type is OBJECT IDENTIFIER.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 41 
   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the assertion value and the
   attribute value represent the same object identifier; that is, the
   same sequence of integers, whether represented explicitly in the
   <numericoid> form of <oid> or implicitly in the <descr> form (see
   [RFC4512]).

   If an LDAP client supplies an assertion value in the <descr> form and
   the chosen descriptor is not recognized by the server, then the
   objectIdentifierMatch rule evaluates to Undefined.

   The LDAP definition for the objectIdentifierMatch matching rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.0 NAME 'objectIdentifierMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 )

   The objectIdentifierMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.27.  octetStringMatch

   The octetStringMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Octet
   String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Octet
   String or JPEG syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is the OCTET
   STRING ASN.1 type.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute value and the
   assertion value are the same length and corresponding octets (by
   position) are the same.

   The LDAP definition for the octetStringMatch matching rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.17 NAME 'octetStringMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 )

   The octetStringMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.28.  octetStringOrderingMatch

   The octetStringOrderingMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Octet String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the
   Octet String or JPEG syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is the
   OCTET STRING ASN.1 type.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the attribute value appears
   earlier in the collation order than the assertion value.  The rule
   compares octet strings from the first octet to the last octet, and
   from the most significant bit to the least significant bit within the
   octet.  The first occurrence of a different bit determines the
   ordering of the strings.  A zero bit precedes a one bit.  If the

Top      Up      ToC       Page 42 
   strings contain different numbers of octets but the longer string is
   identical to the shorter string up to the length of the shorter
   string, then the shorter string precedes the longer string.

   The LDAP definition for the octetStringOrderingMatch matching rule
   is:

      ( 2.5.13.18 NAME 'octetStringOrderingMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 )

   The octetStringOrderingMatch rule is an ordering matching rule.

4.2.29.  telephoneNumberMatch

   The telephoneNumberMatch rule compares an assertion value of the
   Telephone Number syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the
   Telephone Number syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is a
   PrintableString representing a telephone number.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the prepared attribute
   value character string and the prepared assertion value character
   string have the same number of characters and corresponding
   characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value for comparison,
   characters are case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   telephoneNumber Insignificant Character Handling is applied in the
   Insignificant Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the telephoneNumberMatch matching rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.20 NAME 'telephoneNumberMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50 )

   The telephoneNumberMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

4.2.30.  telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch

   The telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch rule compares an assertion value
   of the Substring Assertion syntax to an attribute value of a syntax
   (e.g., the Telephone Number syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is
   a PrintableString representing a telephone number.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if (1) the prepared substrings
   of the assertion value match disjoint portions of the prepared
   attribute value character string in the order of the substrings in
   the assertion value, (2) an <initial> substring, if present, matches
   the beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and

Top      Up      ToC       Page 43 
   (3) a <final> substring, if present, matches the end of the prepared
   attribute value character string.  A prepared substring matches a
   portion of the prepared attribute value character string if
   corresponding characters have the same code point.

   In preparing the attribute value and assertion value substrings for
   comparison, characters are case folded in the Map preparation step,
   and only telephoneNumber Insignificant Character Handling is applied
   in the Insignificant Character Handling step.

   The LDAP definition for the telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch matching
   rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.21 NAME 'telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )

   The telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch rule is a substrings matching
   rule.

4.2.31.  uniqueMemberMatch

   The uniqueMemberMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Name
   And Optional UID syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the
   Name And Optional UID syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is
   NameAndOptionalUID.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the <distinguishedName>
   components of the assertion value and attribute value match according
   to the distinguishedNameMatch rule and either, (1) the <BitString>
   component is absent from both the attribute value and assertion
   value, or (2) the <BitString> component is present in both the
   attribute value and the assertion value and the <BitString> component
   of the assertion value matches the <BitString> component of the
   attribute value according to the bitStringMatch rule.

   Note that this matching rule has been altered from its description in
   X.520 [X.520] in order to make the matching rule commutative.  Server
   implementors should consider using the original X.520 semantics
   (where the matching was less exact) for approximate matching of
   attributes with uniqueMemberMatch as the equality matching rule.

   The LDAP definition for the uniqueMemberMatch matching rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.23 NAME 'uniqueMemberMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34 )

   The uniqueMemberMatch rule is an equality matching rule.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 44 
4.2.32.  wordMatch

   The wordMatch rule compares an assertion value of the Directory
   String syntax to an attribute value of a syntax (e.g., the Directory
   String syntax) whose corresponding ASN.1 type is DirectoryString.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the assertion value word
   matches, according to the semantics of caseIgnoreMatch, any word in
   the attribute value.  The precise definition of a word is
   implementation specific.

   The LDAP definition for the wordMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.32 NAME 'wordMatch'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

5.  Security Considerations

   In general, the LDAP-specific encodings for syntaxes defined in this
   document do not define canonical encodings.  That is, a
   transformation from an LDAP-specific encoding into some other
   encoding (e.g., BER) and back into the LDAP-specific encoding will
   not necessarily reproduce exactly the original octets of the LDAP-
   specific encoding.  Therefore, an LDAP-specific encoding should not
   be used where a canonical encoding is required.

   Furthermore, the LDAP-specific encodings do not necessarily enable an
   alternative encoding of values of the Directory String and DN
   syntaxes to be reconstructed; e.g., a transformation from a
   Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) [BER] encoding to an LDAP-specific
   encoding and back to a DER encoding may not reproduce the original
   DER encoding.  Therefore, LDAP-specific encodings should not be used
   where reversibility to DER is needed; e.g., for the verification of
   digital signatures.  Instead, DER or a DER-reversible encoding should
   be used.

   When interpreting security-sensitive fields (in particular, fields
   used to grant or deny access), implementations MUST ensure that any
   matching rule comparisons are done on the underlying abstract value,
   regardless of the particular encoding used.

6.  Acknowledgements

   This document is primarily a revision of RFC 2252 by M. Wahl, A.
   Coulbeck, T. Howes, and S. Kille.  RFC 2252 was a product of the IETF
   ASID Working Group.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 45 
   This document is based on input from the IETF LDAPBIS working group.
   The author would like to thank Kathy Dally for editing the early
   drafts of this document, and Jim Sermersheim and Kurt Zeilenga for
   their significant contributions to this revision.

7.  IANA Considerations

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has updated the LDAP
   descriptors registry [BCP64] as indicated by the following templates:

      Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration Update
      Descriptor (short name): see comment
      Object Identifier: see comment
      Person & email address to contact for further information:
        Steven Legg <steven.legg@eb2bcom.com>
      Usage: see comment
      Specification: RFC 4517
      Author/Change Controller: IESG

      NAME                              Type  OID
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      bitStringMatch                       M  2.5.13.16
      booleanMatch                         M  2.5.13.13
      caseExactIA5Match                    M  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.1
      caseExactMatch                       M  2.5.13.5
      caseExactOrderingMatch               M  2.5.13.6
      caseExactSubstringsMatch             M  2.5.13.7
      caseIgnoreIA5Match                   M  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.2
      caseIgnoreListMatch                  M  2.5.13.11
      caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch        M  2.5.13.12
      caseIgnoreMatch                      M  2.5.13.2
      caseIgnoreOrderingMatch              M  2.5.13.3
      caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            M  2.5.13.4
      directoryStringFirstComponentMatch   M  2.5.13.31
      distinguishedNameMatch               M  2.5.13.1
      generalizedTimeMatch                 M  2.5.13.27
      generalizedTimeOrderingMatch         M  2.5.13.28
      integerFirstComponentMatch           M  2.5.13.29
      integerMatch                         M  2.5.13.14
      integerOrderingMatch                 M  2.5.13.15
      keywordMatch                         M  2.5.13.33
      numericStringMatch                   M  2.5.13.8
      numericStringOrderingMatch           M  2.5.13.9
      numericStringSubstringsMatch         M  2.5.13.10
      objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch  M  2.5.13.30
      octetStringMatch                     M  2.5.13.17
      octetStringOrderingMatch             M  2.5.13.18
      telephoneNumberMatch                 M  2.5.13.20

Top      Up      ToC       Page 46 
      telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch       M  2.5.13.21
      uniqueMemberMatch                    M  2.5.13.23
      wordMatch                            M  2.5.13.32

      The descriptor for the object identifier 2.5.13.0 was incorrectly
      registered as objectIdentifiersMatch (extraneous \`s') in BCP 64.
      It has been changed to the following, with a reference to
      RFC 4517.

      NAME                              Type  OID
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      objectIdentifierMatch                M  2.5.13.0

      Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration
      Descriptor (short name): caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch
      Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.3
      Person & email address to contact for further information:
        Steven Legg <steven.legg@eb2bcom.com>
      Usage: other (M)
      Specification: RFC 4517
      Author/Change Controller: IESG

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

   [RFC4510]  Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510, June
              2006.

   [RFC4511]  Sermersheim, J., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
              Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.

   [RFC4512]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Directory Information Models", RFC 4512, June
              2006.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 47 
   [RFC4514]  Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC
              4514, June 2006.

   [RFC4518]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Internationalized String Preparation", RFC 4518,
              June 2006.

   [RFC4520]  Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
              Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
              Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006.

   [E.123]    Notation for national and international telephone numbers,
              ITU-T Recommendation E.123, 1988.

   [FAX]      Standardization of Group 3 facsimile apparatus for
              document transmission - Terminal Equipment and Protocols
              for Telematic Services, ITU-T Recommendation T.4, 1993

   [T.50]     International Reference Alphabet (IRA) (Formerly
              International Alphabet No. 5 or IA5) Information
              Technology - 7-Bit Coded Character Set for Information
              Interchange, ITU-T Recommendation T.50, 1992

   [X.420]    ITU-T Recommendation X.420 (1996) | ISO/IEC 10021-7:1997,
              Information Technology - Message Handling Systems (MHS):
              Interpersonal messaging system

   [X.501]    ITU-T Recommendation X.501 (1993) | ISO/IEC 9594-2:1994,
              Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
              The Directory: Models

   [X.520]    ITU-T Recommendation X.520 (1993) | ISO/IEC 9594-6:1994,
              Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
              The Directory: Selected attribute types

   [ASN.1]    ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (07/02) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002,
              Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One
              (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation

   [ISO3166]  ISO 3166, "Codes for the representation of names of
              countries".

   [ISO8601]  ISO 8601:2004, "Data elements and interchange formats --
              Information interchange -- Representation of dates and
              times".

Top      Up      ToC       Page 48 
   [UCS]      Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -
              Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-
              1:  1993 (with amendments).

   [JPEG]     JPEG File Interchange Format (Version 1.02).  Eric
              Hamilton, C-Cube Microsystems, Milpitas, CA, September 1,
              1992.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4519]  Sciberras, A., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Schema for User Applications", RFC 4519, June
              2006.

   [RFC4523]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP) Schema Definitions for X.509 Certificates", RFC
              4523, June 2006.

   [X.500]    ITU-T Recommendation X.500 (1993) | ISO/IEC 9594-1:1994,
              Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
              The Directory: Overview of concepts, models and services

   [BER]      ITU-T Recommendation X.690 (07/02) | ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002,
              Information technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
              Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
              Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
              (DER)

Top      Up      ToC       Page 49 
Appendix A. Summary of Syntax Object Identifiers

   The following list summarizes the object identifiers assigned to the
   syntaxes defined in this document.

      Syntax                           OBJECT IDENTIFIER
      ==============================================================
      Attribute Type Description       1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.3
      Bit String                       1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6
      Boolean                          1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7
      Country String                   1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.11
      Delivery Method                  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.14
      Directory String                 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
      DIT Content Rule Description     1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.16
      DIT Structure Rule Description   1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.17
      DN                               1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
      Enhanced Guide                   1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.21
      Facsimile Telephone Number       1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.22
      Fax                              1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.23
      Generalized Time                 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24
      Guide                            1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.25
      IA5 String                       1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26
      Integer                          1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
      JPEG                             1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28
      LDAP Syntax Description          1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54
      Matching Rule Description        1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.30
      Matching Rule Use Description    1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.31
      Name And Optional UID            1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34
      Name Form Description            1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.35
      Numeric String                   1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36
      Object Class Description         1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.37
      Octet String                     1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40
      OID                              1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38
      Other Mailbox                    1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.39
      Postal Address                   1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41
      Printable String                 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44
      Substring Assertion              1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58
      Telephone Number                 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50
      Teletex Terminal Identifier      1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.51
      Telex Number                     1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.52
      UTC Time                         1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.53

Appendix B. Changes from RFC 2252

   This annex lists the significant differences between this
   specification and RFC 2252.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 50 
   This annex is provided for informational purposes only.  It is not a
   normative part of this specification.

   1.  The IESG Note has been removed.

   2.  The major part of Sections 4, 5 and 7 has been moved to [RFC4512]
       and revised.  Changes to the parts of these sections moved to
       [RFC4512] are detailed in [RFC4512].

   3.  BNF descriptions of syntax formats have been replaced by ABNF
       [RFC4234] specifications.

   4.  The ambiguous statement in RFC 2252, Section 4.3 regarding the
       use of a backslash quoting mechanism to escape separator symbols
       has been removed.  The escaping mechanism is now explicitly
       represented in the ABNF for the syntaxes where this provision
       applies.

   5.  The description of each of the LDAP syntaxes has been expanded so
       that they are less dependent on knowledge of X.500 for
       interpretation.

   6.  The relationship of LDAP syntaxes to corresponding ASN.1 type
       definitions has been made explicit.

   7.  The set of characters allowed in a <PrintableString> (formerly
       <printablestring>) has been corrected to align with the
       PrintableString ASN.1 type in [ASN.1].  Specifically, the double
       quote character has been removed and the single quote character
       and equals sign have been added.

   8.  Values of the Directory String, Printable String and Telephone
       Number syntaxes are now required to have at least one character.

   9.  The <DITContentRuleDescription>, <NameFormDescription> and
       <DITStructureRuleDescription> rules have been moved to [RFC4512].

   10. The corresponding ASN.1 type for the Other Mailbox syntax has
       been incorporated from RFC 1274.

   11. A corresponding ASN.1 type for the LDAP Syntax Description syntax
       has been invented.

   12. The Binary syntax has been removed because it was not adequately
       specified, implementations with different incompatible
       interpretations exist, and it was confused with the ;binary
       transfer encoding.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 51 
   13. All discussion of transfer options, including the ";binary"
       option, has been removed.  All imperatives regarding binary
       transfer of values have been removed.

   14. The Delivery Method, Enhanced Guide, Guide, Octet String, Teletex
       Terminal Identifier and Telex Number syntaxes from RFC 2256 have
       been incorporated.

   15. The <criteria> rule for the Enhanced Guide and Guide syntaxes has
       been extended to accommodate empty "and" and "or" expressions.

   16. An encoding for the <ttx-value> rule in the Teletex Terminal
       Identifier syntax has been defined.

   17. The PKI-related syntaxes (Certificate, Certificate List and
       Certificate Pair) have been removed.  They are reintroduced in
       [RFC4523] (as is the Supported Algorithm syntax from RFC 2256).

   18. The MHS OR Address syntax has been removed since its
       specification (in RFC 2156) is not at draft standard maturity.

   19. The DL Submit Permission syntax has been removed as it depends on
       the MHS OR Address syntax.

   20. The Presentation Address syntax has been removed since its
       specification (in RFC 1278) is not at draft standard maturity.

   21. The ACI Item, Access Point, Audio, Data Quality, DSA Quality, DSE
       Type, LDAP Schema Description, Master And Shadow Access Points,
       Modify Rights, Protocol Information, Subtree Specification,
       Supplier Information, Supplier Or Consumer and Supplier And
       Consumer syntaxes have been removed.  These syntaxes are
       referenced in RFC 2252, but not defined.

   22. The LDAP Schema Definition syntax (defined in RFC 2927) and the
       Mail Preference syntax have been removed on the grounds that they
       are out of scope for the core specification.

   23. The description of each of the matching rules has been expanded
       so that they are less dependent on knowledge of X.500 for
       interpretation.

   24. The caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch matching rule from RFC 2798 has
       been added.

   25. The caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch, caseIgnoreOrderingMatch and
       caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch matching rules have been added to the
       list of matching rules for which the provisions for handling

Top      Up      ToC       Page 52 
       leading, trailing and multiple adjoining whitespace characters
       apply (now through string preparation).  This is consistent with
       the definitions of these matching rules in X.500.  The
       caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch rule has also been added to the
       list.

   26. The specification of the octetStringMatch matching rule from
       RFC 2256 has been added to this document.

   27. The presentationAddressMatch matching rule has been removed as it
       depends on an assertion syntax (Presentation Address) that is not
       at draft standard maturity.

   28. The protocolInformationMatch matching rule has been removed as it
       depends on an undefined assertion syntax (Protocol Information).

   29. The definitive reference for ASN.1 has been changed from X.208 to
       X.680 since X.680 is the version of ASN.1 referred to by X.500.

   30. The specification of the caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch matching
       rule from RFC 2798 & X.520 has been added.

   31. String preparation algorithms have been applied to the character
       string matching rules.

   32. The specifications of the booleanMatch, caseExactMatch,
       caseExactOrderingMatch, caseExactSubstringsMatch,
       directoryStringFirstComponentMatch, integerOrderingMatch,
       keywordMatch, numericStringOrderingMatch,
       octetStringOrderingMatch and wordMatch matching rules from
       RFC 3698 & X.520 have been added.

Author's Address

   Steven Legg
   eB2Bcom
   Suite3, Woodhouse Corporate Centre
   935 Station Street
   Box Hill North, Victoria 3129
   AUSTRALIA

   Phone: +61 3 9896 7830
   Fax: +61 3 9896 7801
   EMail: steven.legg@eb2bcom.com

Top      Up      ToC       Page 53 
Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).