





INTERNET-DRAFT                                           S. Legg, Editor
draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-07.txt                   Adacel Technologies
Intended Category: Standards Track                              K. Dally
Obsoletes: RFC 2252, RFC 2256                            The MITRE Corp.
                                                         27 October 2003


                   LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and
   revision, submitted to the RFC Editor as a Standard Track document.
   Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Technical discussion of
   this document should take place on the IETF LDAP Revision Working
   Group (LDAPbis) mailing list <ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org>.  Please
   send editorial comments directly to the editor
   <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>.

   This Internet-Draft expires on 27 April 2004.


Abstract

   Each attribute stored in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
   (LDAP) directory, and whose values may be transfered in the LDAP



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   protocol, has a defined syntax which constrains the structure and
   format of its values.  The comparison semantics for values of a
   syntax are not part of the syntax definition but are instead provided
   through separately defined matching rules.  Matching rules specify an
   argument, an assertion value, which also has a defined syntax.  This
   document defines a base set of syntaxes and matching rules for use in
   defining attributes for LDAP directories.












































Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Syntaxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.  General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.  Common Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.3.  Syntax Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
             3.3.1.  Attribute Type Description . . . . . . . . . . .  7
             3.3.2.  Bit String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
             3.3.3.  Boolean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
             3.3.4.  Country String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
             3.3.5.  Delivery Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
             3.3.6.  Directory String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
             3.3.7.  DIT Content Rule Description . . . . . . . . . . 10
             3.3.8.  DIT Structure Rule Description . . . . . . . . . 11
             3.3.9.  DN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
             3.3.10. Enhanced Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
             3.3.11. Facsimile Telephone Number . . . . . . . . . . . 13
             3.3.12. Fax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
             3.3.13. Generalized Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
             3.3.14. Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
             3.3.15. IA5 String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
             3.3.16. Integer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
             3.3.17. JPEG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
             3.3.18. LDAP Syntax Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
             3.3.19. Matching Rule Description. . . . . . . . . . . . 17
             3.3.20. Matching Rule Use Description. . . . . . . . . . 17
             3.3.21. Name and Optional UID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
             3.3.22. Name Form Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
             3.3.23. Numeric String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
             3.3.24. Object Class Description . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
             3.3.25. Octet String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
             3.3.26. OID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
             3.3.27. Other Mailbox. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
             3.3.28. Postal Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
             3.3.29. Printable String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
             3.3.30. Substring Assertion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
             3.3.31. Telephone Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
             3.3.32. Teletex Terminal Identifier. . . . . . . . . . . 24
             3.3.33. Telex Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
             3.3.34. UTC Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   4.  Matching Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       4.1.  General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       4.2.  Matching Rule Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
             4.2.1.  bitStringMatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
             4.2.2.  caseExactIA5Match. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
             4.2.3.  caseIgnoreIA5Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


             4.2.4.  caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch . . . . . . . . . . 29
             4.2.5.  caseIgnoreListMatch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
             4.2.6.  caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch. . . . . . . . . . 30
             4.2.7.  caseIgnoreMatch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
             4.2.8.  caseIgnoreOrderingMatch. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
             4.2.9.  caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch. . . . . . . . . . . . 32
             4.2.10. distinguishedNameMatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
             4.2.11. generalizedTimeMatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
             4.2.12. generalizedTimeOrderingMatch . . . . . . . . . . 33
             4.2.13. integerFirstComponentMatch . . . . . . . . . . . 34
             4.2.14. integerMatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
             4.2.15. numericStringMatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
             4.2.16. numericStringSubstringsMatch . . . . . . . . . . 35
             4.2.17. objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch. . . . . . . 36
             4.2.18. objectIdentifierMatch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
             4.2.19. octetStringMatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
             4.2.20. telephoneNumberMatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
             4.2.21. telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch . . . . . . . . . 38
             4.2.22. uniqueMemberMatch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   5.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   7.  IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
       8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
       8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   9.  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
   10. Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   Appendix A. Summary of Syntax Object Identifiers . . . . . . . . . 44
   Appendix B. Changes from RFC 2252 & RFC 2256 . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1.  Introduction

   Each attribute stored in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
   (LDAP) directory [ROADMAP], and whose values may be transfered in the
   LDAP protocol [PROT], has a defined syntax (i.e., data type) which
   constrains the structure and format of its values.  The comparison
   semantics for values of a syntax are not part of the syntax
   definition but are instead provided through separately defined
   matching rules.  Matching rules specify an argument, an assertion
   value, which also has a defined syntax.  This document defines a base
   set of syntaxes and matching rules for use in defining attributes for
   LDAP directories.

   Readers are advised to familiarize themselves with the Directory
   Information Models [MODELS] before reading the rest of this document.
   Section 3 provides definitions for the base set of LDAP syntaxes.
   Section 4 provides definitions for the base set of matching rules for



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   LDAP.

   This document is a integral part of the LDAP technical specification
   [ROADMAP] which obsoletes the previously defined LDAP technical
   specification [RFC3377] in its entirety.

   Sections 4, 5 and 7 of RFC 2252 [RFC2252] are obsoleted by [MODELS].
   The remainder of RFC 2252 is obsoleted by this document.  Sections 6
   and 8 of RFC 2256 [RFC2256] are obsoleted by this document.  The
   remainder of RFC 2256 is obsoleted by [SCHEMA] and [MODELS].

   A number of schema elements which were included in the previous
   revision of the LDAP technical specification are not included in this
   revision of LDAP.  Public Key Infrastructure schema elements are now
   specified in [LDAP-PKI].  Unless reintroduced in future technical
   specifications, the remainder are to be considered Historic.

   The changes from RFC 2252 and RFC 2256 are described in Appendix B of
   this document.

2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and  "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [KEYWORD].

   Syntax definitions are written according to the <SyntaxDescription>
   ABNF [ABNF] rule specified in [MODELS], and matching rule definitions
   are written according to the <MatchingRuleDescription> ABNF rule
   specified in [MODELS], except that the syntax and matching rule
   definitions provided in this document are line-wrapped for
   readability.  When such definitions are transfered as attribute
   values in the LDAP protocol (e.g., as values of the ldapSyntaxes and
   matchingRules attributes [MODELS] respectively) then those values
   would not contain line breaks.

3.  Syntaxes

   Syntax definitions constrain the structure of attribute values stored
   in an LDAP directory, and determine the representation of attribute
   and assertion values transfered in the LDAP protocol.

   Syntaxes that are required for directory operation, or that are in
   common use, are specified in this section.  Servers SHOULD recognize
   all the syntaxes listed in this document, but are not required to
   otherwise support them, and MAY recognise or support other syntaxes.
   However, the definition of additional arbitrary syntaxes is



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   discouraged since it will hinder interoperability.  Client and server
   implementations typically do not have the ability to dynamically
   recognize new syntaxes.

3.1.  General Considerations

   The description of each syntax specifies how attribute or assertion
   values conforming to the syntax are to be represented when transfered
   in the LDAP protocol [PROT].  This representation is referred to as
   the LDAP-specific encoding to distinguish it from other methods of
   encoding attribute values (e.g., the Basic Encoding Rules (BER)
   encoding [BER] used by X.500 [X.500] directories).

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a given attribute syntax always
   produces octet-aligned values.  To the greatest extent possible,
   encoding rules for LDAP syntaxes should produce character strings
   that can be displayed with little or no translation by clients
   implementing LDAP.  However, clients MUST NOT assume that the
   LDAP-specific encoding of a value of an unrecognized syntax is a
   human-readable character string.  There are a few cases (e.g., the
   JPEG syntax) when it is not reasonable to produce a human-readable
   representation.

   Each LDAP syntax is uniquely identified with an object identifier
   [ASN.1] represented in the dotted-decimal format (short descriptive
   names are not defined for syntaxes).  These object identifiers are
   not intended to be displayed to users.  The object identifiers for
   the syntaxes defined in this document are summarized in Appendix A.

   A suggested minimum upper bound on the number of characters in an
   attribute value with a string-based syntax, or the number of octets
   in a value for all other syntaxes, MAY be indicated by appending the
   bound inside of curly braces following the syntax's OBJECT IDENTIFIER
   in an attribute type definition (see the <noidlen> rule in [MODELS]).
   Such a bound is not considered part of the syntax identifier.

   For example, "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{64}" in an attribute
   definition suggests that the directory server will allow a value of
   the attribute to be up to 64 characters long, although it may allow
   longer character strings.  Note that a single character of the
   Directory String syntax can be encoded in more than one octet since
   UTF-8 [UTF8] is a variable-length encoding.  Therefore a 64 character
   string may be more than 64 octets in length.

3.2.  Common Definitions

   The following ABNF rules are used in a number of the syntax
   definitions in Section 3.3.



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      PrintableCharacter = ALPHA / DIGIT / SQUOTE / LPAREN / RPAREN /
                           PLUS / COMMA / HYPHEN / DOT / EQUALS /
                           SLASH / COLON / QUESTION / SPACE
      PrintableString    = 1*PrintableCharacter
      IA5String          = *(%x00-7F)
      HEX-DIGIT          = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
                                 ; N.B. allows upper and lower case
      SLASH              = %x2F  ; forward slash ("/")
      COLON              = %x3A  ; colon (":")
      QUESTION           = %x3F  ; question mark ("?")

   The <OCTET>, <ALPHA>, <DIGIT>, <SQUOTE>, <LPAREN>, <RPAREN>, <PLUS>,
   <COMMA>, <HYPHEN>, <DOT>, <EQUALS> and <SPACE> rules are defined in
   [MODELS].

3.3.  Syntax Definitions

3.3.1.  Attribute Type Description

   A value of the Attribute Type Description syntax is the definition of
   an attribute type.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this
   syntax is defined by the <AttributeTypeDescription> rule in [MODELS].
   For example, the following definition of the createTimestamp
   attribute type from [MODELS] is also a value of the Attribute Type
   Description syntax (note: line breaks have been added for readability
   - they are not part of the value when transfered in protocol).

      ( 2.5.18.1 NAME 'createTimestamp'
         EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch
         ORDERING generalizedTimeOrderingMatch
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24
         SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION
         USAGE directoryOperation )

   The LDAP definition for the Attribute Type Description syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.3 DESC 'Attribute Type Description' )

   This syntax corresponds to the AttributeTypeDescription ASN.1 type
   from [X.501].

3.3.2.  Bit String

   A value of the Bit String syntax is a sequence of binary digits.  The
   LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by the
   following ABNF:

      BitString    = SQUOTE *binary-digit SQUOTE "B"



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      binary-digit = "0" / "1"

   The <SQUOTE> rule is defined in [MODELS].

      Example:
         '0101111101'B

   The LDAP definition for the Bit String syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 DESC 'Bit String' )

   This syntax corresponds to the BIT STRING ASN.1 type from [ASN.1].

3.3.3.  Boolean

   A value of the Boolean syntax is one of the Boolean values, true or
   false.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is
   defined by the following ABNF:

      Boolean = "TRUE" / "FALSE"

   The LDAP definition for the Boolean syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7 DESC 'Boolean' )

   This syntax corresponds to the BOOLEAN ASN.1 type from [ASN.1].

3.3.4.  Country String

   A value of the Country String syntax is one of the two-character
   codes from ISO 3166 [ISO3166] for representing a country.  The
   LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by the
   following ABNF:

      CountryString  = 2(PrintableCharacter)

   The <PrintableCharacter> rule is defined in Section 3.2.

      Examples:
         US
         AU

   The LDAP definition for the Country String syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.11 DESC 'Country String' )

   This syntax corresponds to the following ASN.1 type from [X.520]:




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      PrintableString (SIZE (2)) -- ISO 3166 codes only

3.3.5.  Delivery Method

   A value of the Delivery Method syntax is a sequence of items that
   indicate, in preference order, the service(s) by which an entity is
   willing and/or capable of receiving messages.  The LDAP-specific
   encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by the following ABNF:

      DeliveryMethod = pdm *( WSP DOLLAR WSP pdm )

      pdm = "any" / "mhs" / "physical" / "telex" / "teletex" /
            "g3fax" / "g4fax" / "ia5" / "videotex" / "telephone"

   The <WSP> and <DOLLAR> rules are defined in [MODELS].

      Example:
         telephone $ videotex

   The LDAP definition for the Delivery Method syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.14 DESC 'Delivery Method' )

   This syntax corresponds to the following ASN.1 type from [X.520]:

      SEQUENCE OF INTEGER {
          any-delivery-method     (0),
          mhs-delivery            (1),
          physical-delivery       (2),
          telex-delivery          (3),
          teletex-delivery        (4),
          g3-facsimile-delivery   (5),
          g4-facsimile-delivery   (6),
          ia5-terminal-delivery   (7),
          videotex-delivery       (8),
          telephone-delivery      (9) }

3.3.6.  Directory String

   A value of the Directory String syntax is a string of one or more
   arbitrary characters from the Universal Character Set (UCS) [UCS].  A
   zero length character string is not permitted.  The LDAP-specific
   encoding of a value of this syntax is the UTF-8 encoding [UTF8] of
   the character string.  Such encodings conform to the following ABNF:

      DirectoryString = 1*UTF8

   The <UTF8> rule is defined in [MODELS].



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                 [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      Example:
         This is a value of Directory String containing #!%#@.

   Servers and clients MUST be prepared to receive arbitrary UCS code
   points, including code points outside the range of printable ASCII
   and code points not presently assigned to any character.

   Attribute type definitions using the Directory String syntax should
   not restrict the format of Directory String values, e.g., by
   requiring that the character string conforms to specific patterns
   described by ABNF.  A new syntax should be defined in such cases.

   The LDAP definition for the Directory String syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 DESC 'Directory String' )

   This syntax corresponds to the DirectoryString parameterized ASN.1
   type from [X.520].

   The DirectoryString ASN.1 type allows a choice between the
   TeletexString, PrintableString or UniversalString ASN.1 types from
   [ASN.1].  However, note that the chosen alternative is not indicated
   in the LDAP-specific encoding of a Directory String value.

   Implementations which convert Directory String values from the
   LDAP-specific encoding to the BER encoding used by X.500 must choose
   an alternative that permits the particular characters in the string,
   and must convert the characters from the UTF-8 encoding into the
   character encoding of the chosen alternative.

   When converting Directory String values from the BER encoding to the
   LDAP-specific encoding the characters must be converted from the
   character encoding of the chosen alternative into the UTF-8 encoding.

3.3.7.  DIT Content Rule Description

   A value of the DIT Content Rule Description syntax is the definition
   of a DIT (Directory Information Tree) content rule.  The
   LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by the
   <DITContentRuleDescription> rule in [MODELS].

      Example:
         ( 2.5.6.4 DESC 'content rule for organization'
            NOT ( x121Address $ telexNumber ) )

   Note: a line break has been added for readability - it is not part of
   the value.




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   The LDAP definition for the DIT Content Rule Description syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.16
         DESC 'DIT Content Rule Description' )

   This syntax corresponds to the DITContentRuleDescription ASN.1 type
   from [X.501].

3.3.8.  DIT Structure Rule Description

   A value of the DIT Structure Rule Description syntax is the
   definition of a DIT structure rule.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a
   value of this syntax is defined by the <DITStructureRuleDescription>
   rule in [MODELS].

      Example:
         ( 2 DESC 'organization structure rule' FORM 2.5.15.3 )

   The LDAP definition for the DIT Structure Rule Description syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.17
         DESC 'DIT Structure Rule Description' )

   This syntax corresponds to the DITStructureRuleDescription ASN.1 type
   from [X.501].

3.3.9.  DN

   A value of the DN syntax is the (purported) distinguished name (DN)
   of an entry [MODELS].  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this
   syntax is defined by the <distinguishedName> rule in [LDAPDN].

      Examples (from [LDAPDN]):
         UID=jsmith,DC=example,DC=net
         OU=Sales+CN=J. Smith,DC=example,DC=net
         CN=John Smith\, III,DC=example,DC=net
         CN=Before\0dAfter,DC=example,DC=net
         1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=#04024869,DC=example,DC=com
         CN=Lu\C4\8Di\C4\87

   The LDAP definition for the DN syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 DESC 'DN' )

   The DN syntax corresponds to the DistinguishedName ASN.1 type from
   [X.501].  Note that a BER encoded distinguished name (as used by
   X.500) re-encoded into the LDAP-specific encoding is not necessarily
   reversible to the original BER encoding since the chosen string type



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   in any DirectoryString components of the distinguished name is not
   indicated in the LDAP-specific encoding of the distinguished name
   (see Section 3.3.6).

3.3.10.  Enhanced Guide

   A value of the Enhanced Guide syntax suggests criteria, which consist
   of combinations of attribute types and filter operators, to be used
   in constructing filters to search for entries of particular object
   classes.  The Enhanced Guide syntax improves upon the Guide syntax by
   allowing the recommended depth of the search to be specified.

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by
   the following ABNF:

      EnhancedGuide = object-class SHARP WSP criteria WSP
                         SHARP WSP subset
      object-class  = WSP oid WSP
      subset        = "baseobject" / "oneLevel" / "wholeSubtree"

      criteria   = and-term *( BAR and-term )
      and-term   = term *( AMPERSAND term )
      term       = EXCLAIM term /
                   attributetype DOLLAR match-type /
                   LPAREN criteria RPAREN /
                   true /
                   false
      match-type = "EQ" / "SUBSTR" / "GE" / "LE" / "APPROX"
      true       = "?true"
      false      = "?false"
      BAR        = %x7C  ; vertical bar ("|")
      AMPERSAND  = %x26  ; ampersand ("&")
      EXCLAIM    = %x21  ; exclamation mark ("!")

   The <SHARP>, <WSP>, <oid>, <LPAREN>, <RPAREN>, <attributetype> and
   <DOLLAR> rules are defined in [MODELS].

   The LDAP definition for the Enhanced Guide syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.21 DESC 'Enhanced Guide' )


      Example:
         person#(sn$EQ)#oneLevel

   The Enhanced Guide syntax corresponds to the EnhancedGuide ASN.1 type
   from [X.520].  The EnhancedGuide type references the Criteria ASN.1
   type, also from [X.520].  The <true> rule above represents an empty



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   "and" expression in a value of the Criteria type.  The <false> rule
   above represents an empty "or" expression in a value of the Criteria
   type.

3.3.11.  Facsimile Telephone Number

   A value of the Facsimile Telephone Number syntax is a subscriber
   number of a facsimile device on the public switched telephone
   network.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is
   defined by the following ABNF:

      fax-number       = telephone-number *( DOLLAR fax-parameter )
      telephone-number = PrintableString
      fax-parameter    = "twoDimensional" /
                         "fineResolution" /
                         "unlimitedLength" /
                         "b4Length" /
                         "a3Width" /
                         "b4Width" /
                         "uncompressed"

   The <telephone-number> is a string of printable characters that
   complies with the internationally agreed format for representing
   international telephone numbers [E.123].  The <PrintableString> rule
   is defined in Section 3.2.  The <DOLLAR> rule is defined in [MODELS].

   The LDAP definition for the Facsimile Telephone Number syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.22 DESC 'Facsimile Telephone Number')

   The Facsimile Telephone Number syntax corresponds to the
   FacsimileTelephoneNumber ASN.1 type from [X.520].

3.3.12.  Fax

   A value of the Fax syntax is an image which is produced using the
   Group 3 facsimile process [FAX] to duplicate an object, such as a
   memo.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is the
   string of octets for a Group 3 Fax image as defined in [FAX].

   The LDAP definition for the Fax syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.23 DESC 'Fax' )

   The ASN.1 type corresponding to the Fax syntax is defined as follows,
   assuming EXPLICIT TAGS:

      Fax ::= CHOICE {



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


        g3-facsimile  [3] G3FacsimileBodyPart
      }

   The G3FacsimileBodyPart ASN.1 type is defined in [X.420].

3.3.13.  Generalized Time

   A value of the Generalized Time syntax is a character string
   representing a date and time.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value
   of this syntax is a restriction of the format defined in [ISO8601],
   and is described by the following ABNF:

      century = 2(%x30-39) ; "00" to "99"
      year    = 2(%x30-39) ; "00" to "99"
      month   =   ( %x30 %x31-39 ) ; "01" (January) to "09"
                / ( %x31 %x30-32 ) ; "10" to "12"
      day     =   ( %x30 %x31-39 )    ; "01" to "09"
                / ( %x31-32 %x30-39 ) ; "10" to "29"
                / ( %x33 %x30-31 )    ; "30" to "31"
      hour    = ( %x30-31 %x30-39 ) / ( %x32 %x30-33 ) ; "00" to "23"
      minute  = %x30-35 %x30-39                        ; "00" to "59"
      second  =   ( %x30-35 %x30-39 )  ; "00" to "59"
                / ( %x36 %x30 )        ; "60" (a leap second)

      GeneralizedTime = century year month day hour
                           [ minute [ second ] ] [ fraction ]
                           g-time-zone
      fraction        = ( DOT / COMMA ) 1*(%x30-39)
      g-time-zone     = %x5A  ; "Z"
                        / g-differential
      g-differential  = ( MINUS / PLUS ) hour [ minute ]
      MINUS           = %x2D  ; minus sign ("-")

   The <DOT>, <COMMA> and <PLUS> rules are defined in [MODELS].

   The time value represents coordinated universal time (equivalent to
   Greenwich Mean Time) if the "Z" form of <g-time-zone> is used,
   otherwise the value represents a local time in the time zone
   indicated by <g-differential>.  In the latter case, coordinated
   universal time can be calculated by subtracting the differential from
   the local time.  The "Z" form of <g-time-zone> SHOULD be used in
   preference to <g-differential>.

      Examples:
         199412161032Z
         199412160532-0500

   Both example values represent the same coordinated universal time:



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   10:32 AM, December 16, 1994.

   The LDAP definition for the Generalized Time syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 DESC 'Generalized Time' )

   This syntax corresponds to the GeneralizedTime ASN.1 type from
   [ASN.1], with the constraint that local time without a differential
   SHALL NOT be used.

3.3.14.  Guide

   A value of the Guide syntax suggests criteria, which consist of
   combinations of attribute types and filter operators, to be used in
   constructing filters to search for entries of particular object
   classes.  The Guide syntax is obsolete and should not be used for
   defining new attribute types.

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by
   the following ABNF:

      Guide = [ object-class SHARP ] criteria

   The <object-class> and <criteria> rules are defined in Section
   3.3.10.  The <SHARP> rule is defined in [MODELS].

   The LDAP definition for the Guide syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.25 DESC 'Guide' )

   The Guide syntax corresponds to the Guide ASN.1 type from [X.520].

3.3.15.  IA5 String

   A value of the IA5 String syntax is a string of zero, one or more
   characters from International Alphabet 5 (IA5) [T.50], the
   international version of the ASCII character set.  The LDAP-specific
   encoding of a value of this syntax is the unconverted string of
   characters, which conforms to the <IA5String> rule in Section 3.2.

   The LDAP definition for the IA5 String syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 DESC 'IA5 String' )

   This syntax corresponds to the IA5String ASN.1 type from [ASN.1].

3.3.16.  Integer




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   A value of the Integer syntax is a whole number of unlimited
   magnitude.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is
   the optionally signed decimal digit character string representation
   of the number (so, for example, the number 1321 is represented by the
   character string "1321").  The encoding is defined by the following
   ABNF:

      Integer = ( HYPHEN LDIGIT *DIGIT ) / number

   The <HYPHEN>, <LDIGIT>, <DIGIT> and <number> rules are defined in
   [MODELS].

   The LDAP definition for the Integer syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 DESC 'INTEGER' )

   This syntax corresponds to the INTEGER ASN.1 type from [ASN.1].

3.3.17.  JPEG

   A value of the JPEG syntax is an image in the JPEG File Interchange
   Format (JFIF), as described in [JPEG].  The LDAP-specific encoding of
   a value of this syntax is the sequence of octets of the JFIF encoding
   of the image.

   The LDAP definition for the JPEG syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28 DESC 'JPEG' )

   The JPEG syntax corresponds to the following ASN.1 type:

      JPEG ::= OCTET STRING (CONSTRAINED BY
                   { -- contents octets are an image in the --
                     -- JPEG File Interchange Format -- })

3.3.18.  LDAP Syntax Description

   A value of the LDAP Syntax Description syntax is the description of
   an LDAP syntax.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax
   is defined by the <SyntaxDescription> rule in [MODELS].

   The LDAP definition for the LDAP Syntax Description syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54 DESC 'LDAP Syntax Description' )

   The above LDAP definition for the LDAP Syntax Description syntax is
   itself a legal value of the LDAP Syntax Description syntax.




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   The ASN.1 type corresponding to the LDAP Syntax Description syntax is
   defined as follows, assuming EXPLICIT TAGS:

      LDAPSyntaxDescription ::= SEQUENCE {
          identifier      OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
          description     DirectoryString { ub-schema } OPTIONAL }

   The DirectoryString parameterized ASN.1 type is defined in [X.520].

   The value of ub-schema (an integer) is implementation defined.  A
   non-normative definition appears in [X.520].

3.3.19.  Matching Rule Description

   A value of the Matching Rule Description syntax is the definition of
   a matching rule.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this
   syntax is defined by the <MatchingRuleDescription> rule in [MODELS].

      Example:
         ( 2.5.13.2 NAME 'caseIgnoreMatch'
            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

   Note: a line break has been added for readability - it is not part of
   the syntax.

   The LDAP definition for the Matching Rule Description syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.30 DESC 'Matching Rule Description' )

   This syntax corresponds to the MatchingRuleDescription ASN.1 type
   from [X.501].

3.3.20.  Matching Rule Use Description

   A value of the Matching Rule Use Description syntax indicates the
   attribute types to which a matching rule may be applied in an
   extensibleMatch search filter [PROT].  The LDAP-specific encoding of
   a value of this syntax is defined by the <MatchingRuleUseDescription>
   rule in [MODELS].

      Example:
         ( 2.5.13.16 APPLIES ( givenName $ surname ) )

   The LDAP definition for the Matching Rule Use Description syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.31
         DESC 'Matching Rule Use Description' )




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 17]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   This syntax corresponds to the MatchingRuleUseDescription ASN.1 type
   from [X.501].

3.3.21.  Name and Optional UID

   A value of the Name and Optional UID syntax is the distinguished name
   [MODELS] of an entity optionally accompanied by a unique identifier
   that serves to differentiate the entity from others with an identical
   distinguished name.

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by
   the following ABNF:

      NameAndOptionalUID = distinguishedName [ SHARP BitString ]

   The <BitString> rule is defined in Section 3.3.2.  The
   <distinguishedName> rule is defined in [LDAPDN].  The <SHARP> rule is
   defined in [MODELS].

   Note that although the '#' character may occur in the string
   representation of a distinguished name, no additional escaping of
   this character is performed when a <distinguishedName> is encoded in
   a <NameAndOptionalUID>.

      Example:
         1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=#04024869,O=Test,C=GB#'0101'B

   The LDAP definition for the Name and Optional UID syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34 DESC 'Name And Optional UID' )

   This syntax corresponds to the NameAndOptionalUID ASN.1 type from
   [X.520].

3.3.22.  Name Form Description

   A value of the Name Form Description syntax is the definition of a
   name form, which regulates how entries may be named.  The
   LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by the
   <NameFormDescription> rule in [MODELS].

      Example:
         ( 2.5.15.3 NAME 'orgNameForm' OC organization MUST o )

   The LDAP definition for the Name Form Description syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.35 DESC 'Name Form Description' )




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 18]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   This syntax corresponds to the NameFormDescription ASN.1 type from
   [X.501].

3.3.23.  Numeric String

   A value of the Numeric String syntax is a sequence of one or more
   numerals and spaces.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this
   syntax is the unconverted string of characters, which conforms to the
   following ABNF:

      NumericString = 1*(DIGIT / SPACE)

   The <DIGIT> and <SPACE> rules are defined in [MODELS].

      Example:
         15 079 672 281

   The LDAP definition for the Numeric String syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36 DESC 'Numeric String' )

   This syntax corresponds to the NumericString ASN.1 type from [ASN.1].

3.3.24.  Object Class Description

   A value of the Object Class Description syntax is the definition of
   an object class.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this
   syntax is defined by the <ObjectClassDescription> rule in [MODELS].

      Example:
         ( 2.5.6.2 NAME 'country' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST c
            MAY ( searchGuide $ description ) )

   Note: a line break has been added for readability - it is not part of
   the syntax.

   The LDAP definition for the Object Class Description syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.37 DESC 'Object Class Description' )

   This syntax corresponds to the ObjectClassDescription ASN.1 type from
   [X.501].

3.3.25.  Octet String

   A value of the Octet String syntax is a sequence of zero, one or more
   arbitrary octets.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this
   syntax is the unconverted sequence of octets, which conforms to the



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 19]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   following ABNF:

      OctetString = *OCTET

   The <OCTET> rule is defined in [MODELS].  Values of this syntax are
   not generally human-readable.

   The LDAP definition for the Octet String syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 DESC 'Octet String' )

   This syntax corresponds to the OCTET STRING ASN.1 type from [ASN.1].

3.3.26.  OID

   A value of the OID syntax is an object identifier; a sequence of two
   or more non-negative integers that uniquely identify some object or
   item of specification.  Many of the object identifiers used in LDAP
   also have IANA registered names [RFC3383].

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by
   the <oid> rule in [MODELS].

      Examples:
         1.2.3.4
         cn

   The LDAP definition for the OID syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 DESC 'OID' )

   This syntax corresponds to the OBJECT IDENTIFIER ASN.1 type from
   [ASN.1].

3.3.27.  Other Mailbox

   A value of the Other Mailbox syntax identifies an electronic mailbox,
   in a particular named mail system.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a
   value of this syntax is defined by the following ABNF:

      OtherMailbox = mailbox-type DOLLAR mailbox
      mailbox-type = PrintableString
      mailbox      = IA5String

   The <mailbox-type> rule represents the type of mail system in which
   the mailbox resides, for example "MCIMail", and <mailbox> is the
   actual mailbox in the mail system described by <mailbox-type>.  The
   <PrintableString> and <IA5String> rules are defined in Section 3.2.



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 20]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   The <DOLLAR> rule is defined in [MODELS].

   The LDAP definition for the Other Mailbox syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.39 DESC 'Other Mailbox' )

   The ASN.1 type corresponding to the Other Mailbox syntax is defined
   as follows, assuming EXPLICIT TAGS:

      OtherMailbox ::= SEQUENCE {
          mailboxType  PrintableString,
          mailbox      IA5String
      }

3.3.28.  Postal Address

   A value of the Postal Address syntax is a sequence of strings of one
   or more arbitrary UCS characters, which form an address in a physical
   mail system.

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by
   the following ABNF:

      PostalAddress = line *( DOLLAR line )
      line          = 1*line-char
      line-char     = %x00-23
                      / (%x5C "24")  ; escaped "$"
                      / %x25-5B
                      / (%x5C "5C")  ; escaped "\"
                      / %x5D-7F
                      / UTFMB

   Each character string (i.e., <line>) of a postal address value is
   encoded as a UTF-8 [UTF8] string except that "\" and "$" characters,
   if they occur in the string, are escaped by a "\" character followed
   by the two hexadecimal digit code for the character.  The <HEX-DIGIT>
   rule is defined in Section 3.2.  The <DOLLAR> and <UTFMB> rules are
   defined in [MODELS].

   Many servers limit the postal address to no more than six lines of no
   more than thirty characters each.

      Example:
         1234 Main St.$Anytown, CA 12345$USA
         \241,000,000 Sweepstakes$PO Box 1000000$Anytown, CA 12345$USA

   The LDAP definition for the Postal Address syntax is:




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 21]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 DESC 'Postal Address' )

   This syntax corresponds to the PostalAddress ASN.1 type from [X.520],
   i.e.,

      PostalAddress ::= SEQUENCE SIZE(1..ub-postal-line) OF
          DirectoryString { ub-postal-string }

   The values of ub-postal-line and ub-postal-string (both integers) are
   implementation defined.  Non-normative definitions appear in [X.520].

3.3.29.  Printable String

   A value of the Printable String syntax is a string of one or more
   latin alphabetic, numeric, and selected punctuation characters as
   specified by the <PrintableCharacter> rule in Section 3.2.

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is the
   unconverted string of characters, which conforms to the
   <PrintableString> rule in Section 3.2.

      Example:
         This is a PrintableString.

   The LDAP definition for the PrintableString syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 DESC 'Printable String' )

   This syntax corresponds to the PrintableString ASN.1 type from
   [ASN.1].

3.3.30.  Substring Assertion

   A value of the Substring Assertion syntax is a sequence of zero, one
   or more character substrings used as an argument for substring
   extensible matching of character string attribute values, i.e., as
   the matchValue of a MatchingRuleAssertion [PROT].  Each substring is
   a string of one or more arbitrary characters from the Universal
   Character Set (UCS) [UCS].  A zero length substring is not permitted.

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by
   the following ABNF:

      SubstringAssertion = [ initial ] any [ final ]

      initial  = substring
      any      = ASTERISK *(substring ASTERISK)
      final    = substring



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 22]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      ASTERISK = %x2A  ; asterisk ("*")

      substring           = 1*substring-character
      substring-character = %x00-29
                            / (%x5C "2A")  ; escaped "*"
                            / %x2B-5B
                            / (%x5C "5C")  ; escaped "\"
                            / %x5D-7F
                            / UTFMB

   Each <substring> of a Substring Assertion value is encoded as a UTF-8
   [UTF8] string, except that "\" and "*" characters, if they occur in
   the substring, are escaped by a "\" character followed by the two
   hexadecimal digit code for the character.

   The Substring Assertion syntax is used only as the syntax of
   assertion values in the extensible match.  It is not used as an
   attribute syntax, or in the SubstringFilter [PROT].

   The LDAP definition for the Substring Assertion syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 DESC 'Substring Assertion' )

   This syntax corresponds to the SubstringAssertion ASN.1 type from
   [X.520].

3.3.31.  Telephone Number

   A value of the Telephone Number syntax is a string of printable
   characters that complies with the internationally agreed format for
   representing international telephone numbers [E.123].

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is the
   unconverted string of characters, which conforms to the
   <PrintableString> rule in Section 3.2.

      Example:  +1 512 315 0280

   The LDAP definition for the Telephone Number syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50 DESC 'Telephone Number' )

   The Telephone Number syntax corresponds to the following ASN.1 type
   from [X.520]:

      PrintableString (SIZE(1..ub-telephone-number))

   The value of ub-telephone-number (an integer) is implementation



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 23]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   defined.  A non-normative definition appears in [X.520].

3.3.32.  Teletex Terminal Identifier

   A value of this syntax specifies the identifier and (optionally)
   parameters of a teletex terminal.

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by
   the following ABNF:

      teletex-id = ttx-term *(DOLLAR ttx-param)
      ttx-term   = PrintableString          ; terminal identifier
      ttx-param  = ttx-key COLON ttx-value  ; parameter
      ttx-key    = "graphic" / "control" / "misc" / "page" / "private"
      ttx-value  = *ttx-value-char

      ttx-value-char = %x00-23
                       / (%x5C "24")  ; escaped "$"
                       / %x25-5B
                       / (%x5C "5C")  ; escaped "\"
                       / %x5D-FF

   The <PrintableString> and <COLON> rules are defined in Section 3.2.
   The <DOLLAR> rule is defined in [MODELS].

   The LDAP definition for the Teletex Terminal Identifier syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.51
         DESC 'Teletex Terminal Identifier' )

   This syntax corresponds to the TeletexTerminalIdentifier ASN.1 type
   from [X.520].

3.3.33.  Telex Number

   A value of the Telex Number syntax specifies the telex number,
   country code and answerback code of a telex terminal.

   The LDAP-specific encoding of a value of this syntax is defined by
   the following ABNF:

      telex-number  = actual-number DOLLAR country-code
                         DOLLAR answerback
      actual-number = PrintableString
      country-code  = PrintableString
      answerback    = PrintableString

   The <PrintableString> rule is defined in Section 3.2.  The <DOLLAR>



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 24]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   rule is defined in [MODELS].

   The LDAP definition for the Telex Number syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.52 DESC 'Telex Number' )

   This syntax corresponds to the TelexNumber ASN.1 type from [X.520].

3.3.34.  UTC Time

   A value of the UTC Time syntax is a character string representing a
   date and time to a precision of one minute or one second.  The year
   is given as a two-digit number.  The LDAP-specific encoding of a
   value of this syntax follows the format defined in [ASN.1] for the
   UTCTime type and is described by the following ABNF:

      UTCTime         = year month day hour minute [ second ]
                           [ u-time-zone ]
      u-time-zone     = %x5A  ; "Z"
                        / u-differential
      u-differential  = ( MINUS / PLUS ) hour minute

   The <year>, <month>, <day>, <hour>, <minute>, <second> and <MINUS>
   rules are defined in Section 3.3.13.  The <PLUS> rule is defined in
   [MODELS].

   The time value represents coordinated universal time if the "Z" form
   of <u-time-zone> is used, otherwise the value represents a local
   time.  In the latter case, if <u-differential> is provided then
   coordinated universal time can be calculated by subtracting the
   differential from the local time.  The <u-time-zone> SHOULD be
   present in time values and the "Z" form of <u-time-zone> SHOULD be
   used in preference to <u-differential>.

   The LDAP definition for the UTC Time syntax is:

      ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.53 DESC 'UTC Time' )

   Note: This syntax is deprecated in favor of the Generalized Time
   syntax.

   The UTC Time syntax corresponds to the UTCTime ASN.1 type from
   [ASN.1].

4.  Matching Rules

   Matching rules are used by directory implementations to compare
   attribute values against assertion values when performing Search and



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 25]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   Compare operations [PROT].  They are also used when comparing a
   purported distinguished name [MODELS] 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 [PROT].  The
   conditions under which an AttributeValueAssertion or
   MatchingRuleAssertion evaluates to Undefined are specified in [PROT].
   If an assertion is not Undefined then the result of the 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 the AssertionValue in a SubstringFilter
   [PROT] MUST conform to the assertion syntax of the equality matching
   rule for the attribute type rather than the assertion syntax of the
   substrings matching rule for the attribute type.  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 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



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 26]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   attribute type definition [MODELS].

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

   Servers SHOULD implement all the matching rules in Section 4.2.
   Servers MAY implement additional matching rules.

   Servers which 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
   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

   When evaluating the numericStringMatch, numericStringSubstringsMatch,
   caseExactIA5Match, caseIgnoreIA5Match, caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch,
   caseIgnoreListMatch, caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch, caseIgnoreMatch,
   caseIgnoreOrderingMatch, caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch,
   telephoneNumberMatch and telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch matching
   rules the assertion value and attribute value are prepared according
   to the string preparation algorithms [PREP] for LDAP before being
   compared.  The Transcode, Normalize, Prohibit and Check bidi steps
   are the same for each of the matching rules.  However, the Map and
   Insignificant Character Removal steps depends 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.



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 27]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   If the corresponding ASN.1 type of the attribute syntax does not have
   a named bit list (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.  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 Removal is applied in the Insignificant Character
   Removal step.

   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.

4.2.3.  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.

   The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if the prepared attribute
   value character string and the prepared assertion value character



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 28]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   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 Removal is applied in the Insignificant Character
   Removal 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.

4.2.4.  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 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, and an <initial> substring, if present, matches the
   beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and 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 Removal is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Removal 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.

4.2.5.  caseIgnoreListMatch

   The caseIgnoreListMatch rule compares an assertion value that is a
   sequence of strings 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.




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 29]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   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}

   i.e., 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 only apply 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.

4.2.6.  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'
         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )

   The caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch rule is a substrings matching rule.



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 30]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


4.2.7.  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 the
   alternative string types of DirectoryString, e.g., 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 case folded in the Map preparation step, and only
   Insignificant Space Removal is applied in the Insignificant Character
   Removal 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.

4.2.8.  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 Removal is applied in the Insignificant Character
   Removal step.

   The LDAP definition for the caseIgnoreOrderingMatch rule is:

      ( 2.5.13.3 NAME 'caseIgnoreOrderingMatch'



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 31]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


         SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )

   The caseIgnoreOrderingMatch rule is an ordering matching rule.

4.2.9.  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 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, and an <initial> substring, if present, matches the
   beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and 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 Removal is applied in the Insignificant
   Character Removal 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.

4.2.10.  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



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 32]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   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.

4.2.11.  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.

4.2.12.  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 which is earlier than the
   universal coordinated time represented by the assertion value.

   The LDAP definition for the generalizedTimeOrderingMatch rule is:




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 33]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      ( 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.

4.2.13.  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.

   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.

4.2.14.  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.



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 34]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


4.2.15.  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 Removal is applied in the
   Insignificant Character Removal 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.

4.2.16.  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 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, and an <initial> substring, if present, matches the
   beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and 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
   numericString Insignificant Character Removal is applied in the
   Insignificant Character Removal step.

   The LDAP definition for the numericStringSubstringsMatch matching
   rule is:



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 35]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      ( 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.

4.2.17.  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:

      ( 2.5.13.31 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.

4.2.18.  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.

   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
   [MODELS]).




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 36]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   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.

4.2.19.  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.

4.2.20.  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 Removal is applied in the
   Insignificant Character Removal step.

   The LDAP definition for the telephoneNumberMatch matching rule is:




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 37]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      ( 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.

4.2.21.  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 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, and an <initial> substring, if present, matches the
   beginning of the prepared attribute value character string, and 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 Removal is applied
   in the Insignificant Character Removal 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.

4.2.22.  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 the <BitString> component is
   absent from the attribute value or matches the <BitString> component
   of the assertion value according to the bitStringMatch rule.



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 38]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   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.

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, and 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 an 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.

   This document is based upon input of the IETF LDAPBIS working group.
   The authors wish to thank J. Sermersheim and K. Zeilenga for their
   significant contribution to this revision.

7.  IANA Considerations

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is requested to update
   the LDAP descriptors registry [BCP64] as indicated by the following
   templates:




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 39]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      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@adacel.com.au>
      Usage: see comment
      Specification: RFC XXXX
      Author/Change Controller: IESG
      Comments:

      The following descriptors (short names) should be updated to refer
      to RFC XXXX.

      NAME                              Type  OID
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      bitStringMatch                       M  2.5.13.16
      caseExactIA5Match                    M  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.1
      caseIgnoreIA5Match                   M  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.2
      caseIgnoreListMatch                  M  2.5.13.11
      caseIgnoreMatch                      M  2.5.13.2
      caseIgnoreOrderingMatch              M  2.5.13.3
      caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            M  2.5.13.4
      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
      numericStringMatch                   M  2.5.13.8
      numericStringSubstringsMatch         M  2.5.13.10
      objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch  M  2.5.13.31
      octetStringMatch                     M  2.5.13.17
      telephoneNumberMatch                 M  2.5.13.20
      telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch       M  2.5.13.21
      uniqueMemberMatch                    M  2.5.13.23

      The descriptor for the object identifier 2.5.13.0 was incorrectly
      registered as objectIdentifiersMatch (extraneous `s') in BCP 64.
      It should be changed to the following with a reference to RFC
      XXXX.

      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



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 40]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      Person & email address to contact for further information:
        Steven Legg <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>
      Usage: other (M)
      Specification: RFC XXXX
      Author/Change Controller: IESG


      Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration
      Descriptor (short name): caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch
      Object Identifier: 2.5.13.12
      Person & email address to contact for further information:
        Steven Legg <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>
      Usage: other (M)
      Specification: RFC XXXX
      Author/Change Controller: IESG

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

   [ABNF]     Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

   [UTF8]     Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-xx.txt, a work in
              progress, June 2003.

   [BCP64]    Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
              Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
              Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002.

   [LDAPDN]   Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: String Representation of
              Distinguished Names", draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-xx.txt, a work
              in progress, June 2003.

   [PROT]     Sermersheim, J., "LDAP: The Protocol", draft-ietf-ldapbis-
              protocol-xx.txt, a work in progress, September 2003.

   [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




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 41]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   [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".

   [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.

   [ROADMAP]  Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Technical Specification Road Map",
              draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt, a work in progress,
              June 2003.

   [MODELS]   Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Directory Information Models", draft-
              ietf-ldapbis-models-xx.txt, a work in progress, June 2003.

   [PREP]     Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Internationalized String
              Preparation", draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-xx.txt, a work in
              progress, June 2003.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2252]  Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille,
              "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute
              Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 42]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   [RFC2256]  Wahl, M., "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use
              with LDAPv3", RFC 2256, December 1997.

   [RFC3377]  Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
              Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
              September 2002.

   [SCHEMA]   Dally, K., "LDAP: Schema for User Applications", draft-
              ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-xx.txt, a work in progress, June
              2003.

   [LDAP-PKI] Chadwick, D. W. and S. Legg, "LDAP Schema and Syntaxes for
              PKIs", draft-ietf-pkix-ldap-pki-schema-xx.txt, a work in
              progress, July 2002.

   [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)

9.  Authors' Addresses

   Steven Legg
   Adacel Technologies Ltd.
   250 Bay Street
   Brighton, Victoria 3186
   AUSTRALIA

   Phone: +61 3 8530 7710
     Fax: +61 3 8530 7888
   Email: steven.legg@adacel.com.au


   Kathy Dally
   The MITRE Corp.
   7515 Colshire Dr., ms-W650
   McLean VA 22102
   USA

   Phone: +1 703 883 6058
     Fax: +1 703 883 7142
   Email: kdally@mitre.org




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 43]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


10.  Intellectual Property Notice

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

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



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 44]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      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 & RFC 2256

   This annex lists the significant differences between this
   specification and RFC 2252 and Sections 6 and 8 of RFC 2256.

   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 [MODELS]
       and revised. Changes to the parts of these sections moved to
       [MODELS] are detailed in [MODELS].

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



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 45]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


       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 [MODELS].

   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.

   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 from RFC 2252, and Supported Algorithm syntax
       from RFC 2256) have been removed.  They are to be reintroduced in
       PKIX documents.

   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.



Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 46]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


   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 a 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
       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 to this document.

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

Full Copyright Statement




Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 47]

INTERNET-DRAFT      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules   October 27, 2003


      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.


























Legg & Dally              Expires 27 April 2004                [Page 48]

