[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Matching rule review comment on 3280bis



Russ,

 

I optimized it out because it seemed redundant, but don’t have any

objection to mentioning it explicitly, for example:

 

   Conforming implementations MUST use the LDAP StringPrep profile

   (including insignificant space handling), as specified in

   [RFC 4518], as the basis for comparison ...

 

For PrintableString the first five steps of StringPrep (Transcode,

Map, Normalize, Prohibit, Check bidi) can be bypassed completely,

but the sixth step (Insignificant Space Handling) is required for

all DirectoryString types.  Although RFC 4518 canonicalization

is a bit more verbose than strictly necessary for non-wildcard

equality matching (exactly 1 leading and trailing space and

exactly 2 internal spaces, vs. the traditional no leading/trailing

and 1 internal space), there isn’t a downside to using it is there?

 

Dave

 


From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:08 PM
To: Kemp, David P.; pkix
Subject: RE: Matching rule review comment on 3280bis

 

Dave your text is an improvement, but don't you think that the trimming of leading and trailing white space deserves mention?

Russ