title: LDAP & Standards: Extensible match functionality and "Matching Rule" names consistent across vendors?
body: <p>This article discusses and gives examples of LDAP query syntax
  <a href="http://ff1959.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/mastering-ldap-search-filters/" rel="nofollow">http://ff1959.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/mastering-ldap-search-filters/</a></p>
  
  <p>It shows how the 'filter' portion of the query can give a matching rule.  E.g, A filter can specify "exact match" as follows:</p>
  
  <pre><code>(uid:caseExactMatch:=User.0)
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Where ":caseExactMatch:" identifies the name of the  "matching rule"  which the LDAP server will use to filter the results. (e.g. the LDAP server has a matching rule called "caseExactMatch" )</p>
  
  <p>From the article: <em>The above filter will match "User.0" but not "user.0".</em></p>
  
  <p><strong>My question</strong></p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>I see that RFC 4515 defines the syntax. Do major LDAP vendors support this standard, i.e. 'will it work' regardless of implementation (i.e.   including OpenLDAP,
  Microsoft's Active Directory and  SunONE directory server)?</p></li>
  <li><p>Do LDAP vendors support the 'matching rule' names' listed in RFC 4517 (e.g. caseExactMatch, caseIgnoreMatch, keywordMatch, numericStringMatch, etc )</p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p><strong>Reference</strong></p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4517.txt" rel="nofollow" title="RFC4517">RFC 4515</a> defines LDAP filters </p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4517.txt" rel="nofollow" title="RFC4517">RFC 4517</a> defines LDAP matching rules</p>
  
  <p>thanks</p>