[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 RFC 4511

Internet-Draft                                  Editor:  J. Sermersheim
Intended Category: Standard Track                           Novell, Inc
Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-14.txt                   Jun 2003
Obsoletes: RFC 2251


                            LDAP: The Protocol


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.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical discussion of this
   document will take place on the IETF LDAP Revision Working Group
   (LDAPbis) mailing list <ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org>. Please send
   editorial comments directly to the editor <jimse@novell.com>.


Abstract

   This document describes the protocol elements, along with their
   semantics and encodings, for the Lightweight Directory Access
   Protocol (LDAP). LDAP provides access to distributed directory
   services that act in accordance with X.500 data and service models.
   These protocol elements are based on those described in the X.500
   Directory Access Protocol (DAP).


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction.....................................................2
   2. Conventions......................................................3
   3. Protocol Model...................................................3
   4. Elements of Protocol.............................................4
   4.1. Common Elements................................................4
   4.1.1. Message Envelope.............................................4
   4.1.2. String Types.................................................6
   4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name...........6

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 1 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions.......................................6
   4.1.5. Attribute Value..............................................7
   4.1.6. Attribute Value Assertion....................................7
   4.1.7. Attribute....................................................8
   4.1.8. Matching Rule Identifier.....................................8
   4.1.9. Result Message...............................................8
   4.1.10. Referral...................................................10
   4.1.11. Controls...................................................11
   4.2. Bind Operation................................................12
   4.3. Unbind Operation..............................................15
   4.4. Unsolicited Notification......................................15
   4.5. Search Operation..............................................16
   4.6. Modify Operation..............................................23
   4.7. Add Operation.................................................25
   4.8. Delete Operation..............................................26
   4.9. Modify DN Operation...........................................26
   4.10. Compare Operation............................................27
   4.11. Abandon Operation............................................28
   4.12. Extended Operation...........................................29
   4.13. Start TLS Operation..........................................29
   5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer.........................31
   5.1. Protocol Encoding.............................................31
   5.2. Transfer Protocols............................................32
   6. Implementation Guidelines.......................................32
   6.1. Server Implementations........................................32
   6.2. Client Implementations........................................32
   7. Security Considerations.........................................33
   8. Acknowledgements................................................33
   9. Normative References............................................33
   10. Editor's Address...............................................35
   Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes.....................................36
   A.1 Non-Error Result Codes.........................................36
   A.2 Error Result Codes.............................................36
   A.3 Classes and Precedence of Error Result Codes...................36
   Appendix C - Change History........................................47
   C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:......................................47
   C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:............47
   C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:............48
   C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:............48
   C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:............50
   C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:............52
   C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:............52
   C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:............53
   C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:............56
   C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt:...........56
   C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt:...........56
   C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt:...........56
   C.13 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt:...........57
   C.14 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-12.txt:...........57
   C.15 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-13.txt............57
   Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items................................58


1. Introduction

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 2 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   The Directory is "a collection of open systems cooperating to provide
   directory services" [X.500]. A Directory user, which may be a human
   or other entity, accesses the Directory through a client (or
   Directory User Agent (DUA)). The client, on behalf of the directory
   user, interacts with one or more servers (or Directory System Agents
   (DSA)). Clients interact with servers using a directory access
   protocol.

   This document details the protocol elements of Lightweight Directory
   Access Protocol, along with their semantics. Following the
   description of protocol elements, it describes the way in which the
   protocol is encoded and transferred.

   This document is an integral part of the LDAP Technical Specification
   [Roadmap].

   This document replaces RFC 2251. Appendix C holds a detailed log of
   changes to RFC 2251. Prior to Working Group Last Call, this appendix
   will be distilled to a summary of changes to RFC 2251.


2. Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are
   to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
   The terms "connection" and "LDAP connection" both refer to the
   underlying transport protocol connection between two protocol peers.
   The term "TLS connection" refers to a TLS-protected LDAP connection.
   The terms "association" and "LDAP association" both refer to the
   association of the LDAP connection and the current authentication and
   authorization state.


3. Protocol Model

   The general model adopted by this protocol is one of clients
   performing protocol operations against servers. In this model, a
   client transmits a protocol request describing the operation to be
   performed to a server. The server is then responsible for performing
   the necessary operation(s) in the directory. Upon completion of the
   operation(s), the server returns a response containing any results or
   errors to the requesting client.

   Note that although servers are required to return responses whenever
   such responses are defined in the protocol, there is no requirement
   for synchronous behavior on the part of either clients or servers.
   Requests and responses for multiple operations may be exchanged
   between a client and server in any order, provided the client
   eventually receives a response for every request that requires one.

   Note that the core protocol operations defined in this document can
   be mapped to a subset of the X.500(1997) directory abstract service.

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 3 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   However there is not a one-to-one mapping between LDAP protocol
   operations and DAP operations. Server implementations acting as a
   gateway to X.500 directories may need to make multiple DAP requests.


4. Elements of Protocol

   The LDAP protocol is described using Abstract Syntax Notation 1
   (ASN.1) [X.680], and is transferred using a subset of ASN.1 Basic
   Encoding Rules [X.690]. Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is
   encoded and transferred.

   In order to support future Standards Track extensions to this
   protocol, extensibility is implied where it is allowed (per ASN.1).
   In addition, ellipses (...) have been supplied in ASN.1 types that
   are explicitly extensible as discussed in [LDAPIANA]. Because of the
   implied extensibility, clients and servers MUST ignore trailing
   SEQUENCE elements whose tags they do not recognize.

   Changes to the LDAP protocol other than through the extension
   mechanisms described here require a different version number. A
   client indicates the version it is using as part of the bind request,
   described in section 4.2. If a client has not sent a bind, the server
   MUST assume the client is using version 3 or later.

   Clients may determine the protocol versions a server supports by
   reading the supportedLDAPVersion attribute from the root DSE
   [Models]. Servers which implement version 3 or later MUST provide
   this attribute.


4.1. Common Elements

   This section describes the LDAPMessage envelope PDU (Protocol Data
   Unit) format, as well as data type definitions, which are used in the
   protocol operations.


4.1.1. Message Envelope

   For the purposes of protocol exchanges, all protocol operations are
   encapsulated in a common envelope, the LDAPMessage, which is defined
   as follows:

        LDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
                messageID       MessageID,
                protocolOp      CHOICE {
                        bindRequest     BindRequest,
                        bindResponse    BindResponse,
                        unbindRequest   UnbindRequest,
                        searchRequest   SearchRequest,
                        searchResEntry  SearchResultEntry,
                        searchResDone   SearchResultDone,
                        searchResRef    SearchResultReference,

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 4 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

                        modifyRequest   ModifyRequest,
                        modifyResponse  ModifyResponse,
                        addRequest      AddRequest,
                        addResponse     AddResponse,
                        delRequest      DelRequest,
                        delResponse     DelResponse,
                        modDNRequest    ModifyDNRequest,
                        modDNResponse   ModifyDNResponse,
                        compareRequest  CompareRequest,
                        compareResponse CompareResponse,
                        abandonRequest  AbandonRequest,
                        extendedReq     ExtendedRequest,
                        extendedResp    ExtendedResponse,
                        ... },
                controls        [0] Controls OPTIONAL }

        MessageID ::= INTEGER (0 .. maxInt)

        maxInt INTEGER ::= 2147483647 -- (2^^31 - 1) --

   The function of the LDAPMessage is to provide an envelope containing
   common fields required in all protocol exchanges. At this time the
   only common fields are the message ID and the controls.

   If the server receives a PDU from the client in which the LDAPMessage
   SEQUENCE tag cannot be recognized, the messageID cannot be parsed,
   the tag of the protocolOp is not recognized as a request, or the
   encoding structures or lengths of data fields are found to be
   incorrect, then the server MAY return the Notice of Disconnection
   described in section 4.4.1, with resultCode protocolError, and MUST
   immediately close the connection.

   In other cases where the client or server cannot parse a PDU, it
   SHOULD abruptly close the connection where further communication
   (including providing notice) would be pernicious. Otherwise, server
   implementations MUST return an appropriate response to the request,
   with the resultCode set to protocolError.

   The ASN.1 type Controls is defined in section 4.1.11.


4.1.1.1. Message ID

   All LDAPMessage envelopes encapsulating responses contain the
   messageID value of the corresponding request LDAPMessage.

   The message ID of a request MUST have a non-zero value different from
   the values of any other requests outstanding in the LDAP association
   of which this message is a part. The zero value is reserved for the
   unsolicited notification message.

   Typical clients increment a counter for each request.



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 5 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   A client MUST NOT send a request with the same message ID as an
   earlier request on the same LDAP association unless it can be
   determined that the server is no longer servicing the earlier
   request. Otherwise the behavior is undefined. For operations that do
   not return responses (unbind, abandon, and abandoned operations), the
   client SHOULD assume the operation is in progress until a subsequent
   bind request completes.


4.1.2. String Types

   The LDAPString is a notational convenience to indicate that, although
   strings of LDAPString type encode as OCTET STRING types, the
   [ISO10646] character set (a superset of [Unicode]) is used, encoded
   following the UTF-8 algorithm [RFC2279]. Note that in the UTF-8
   algorithm characters which are the same as ASCII (0x0000 through
   0x007F) are represented as that same ASCII character in a single
   byte. The other byte values are used to form a variable-length
   encoding of an arbitrary character.

        LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded,
                                    -- ISO 10646 characters

   The LDAPOID is a notational convenience to indicate that the
   permitted value of this string is a (UTF-8 encoded) dotted-decimal
   representation of an OBJECT IDENTIFIER. Although an LDAPOID is
   encoded as an OCTET STRING, values are limited to the definition of
   numericoid given in Section 1.3 of [Models].

        LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to numericoid [Models]

   For example,

        1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.1.2.3


4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name

   An LDAPDN and a RelativeLDAPDN are respectively defined to be the
   representation of a distinguished-name and a relative-distinguished-
   name after encoding according to the specification in [LDAPDN].

        LDAPDN ::= LDAPString
                   -- Constrained to distinguishedName [LDAPDN]

        RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString
                           -- Constrained to name-component [LDAPDN]


4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions

   The definition and encoding rules for attribute descriptions are
   defined in Section 2.5 of [Models]. Briefly, an attribute description
   is an attribute type and zero or more options.

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 6 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


        AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString
                                 -- Constrained to attributedescription
                                 -- [Models]

   An AttributeDescriptionList describes a list of 0 or more attribute
   descriptions. (A list of zero elements has special significance in
   the Search request.)

        AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF
                AttributeDescription


4.1.5. Attribute Value

   A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING containing an
   encoded attribute value data type. The value is encoded according to
   its LDAP-specific encoding definition. The LDAP-specific encoding
   definitions for different syntaxes and attribute types may be found
   in other documents and in particular [Syntaxes].

        AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING

   Note that there is no defined limit on the size of this encoding;
   thus protocol values may include multi-megabyte attributes (e.g.
   photographs).

   Attributes may be defined which have arbitrary and non-printable
   syntax. Implementations MUST NOT display nor attempt to decode as
   ASN.1, a value if its syntax is not known. The implementation may
   attempt to discover the subschema of the source entry, and retrieve
   the values of attributeTypes from it.

   Clients MUST NOT send attribute values in a request that are not
   valid according to the syntax defined for the attributes.


4.1.6. Attribute Value Assertion

   The AttributeValueAssertion type definition is similar to the one in
   the X.500 directory standards. It contains an attribute description
   and a matching rule assertion value suitable for that type.

        AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
                attributeDesc   AttributeDescription,
                assertionValue  AssertionValue }

        AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING

   The syntax of the AssertionValue depends on the context of the LDAP
   operation being performed. For example, the syntax of the EQUALITY
   matching rule for an attribute is used when performing a Compare
   operation. Often this is the same syntax used for values of the
   attribute type, but in some cases the assertion syntax differs from

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 7 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   the value syntax. See objectIdentiferFirstComponentMatch in
   [Syntaxes] for an example.


4.1.7. Attribute

   An attribute consists of an attribute description and one or more
   values of that attribute description. (Though attributes MUST have at
   least one value when stored, due to access control restrictions the
   set may be empty when transferred from the server to the client. This
   is described in section 4.5.2, concerning the PartialAttributeList
   type.)

        Attribute ::= SEQUENCE {
                type    AttributeDescription,
                vals    SET OF AttributeValue }

   Each attribute value is distinct in the set (no duplicates). The set
   of attribute values is unordered. Implementations MUST NOT reply upon
   any apparent ordering being repeatable.


4.1.8. Matching Rule Identifier

   Matching rules are defined in 4.1.3 of [Models]. A matching rule is
   identified in the LDAP protocol by the printable representation of
   either its numericoid, or one of its short name descriptors, e.g.
   "caseIgnoreIA5Match" or "1.3.6.1.4.1.453.33.33".

        MatchingRuleId ::= LDAPString

   Servers which support matching rules for use in the extensibleMatch
   search filter MUST list the matching rules they implement in
   subschema entries, using the matchingRules attributes. The server
   SHOULD also list there, using the matchingRuleUse attribute, the
   attribute types with which each matching rule can be used. More
   information is given in section 4.5 of [Syntaxes].


4.1.9. Result Message

   The LDAPResult is the construct used in this protocol to return
   success or failure indications from servers to clients. To various
   requests, servers will return responses of LDAPResult or responses
   containing the components of LDAPResult to indicate the final status
   of a protocol operation request.

        LDAPResult ::= SEQUENCE {
                resultCode              ENUMERATED {
                        success                      (0),
                        operationsError              (1),
                        protocolError                (2),
                        timeLimitExceeded            (3),
                        sizeLimitExceeded            (4),

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 8 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

                        compareFalse                 (5),
                        compareTrue                  (6),
                        authMethodNotSupported       (7),
                        strongAuthRequired           (8),
                                        -- 9 reserved --
                        referral                     (10),
                        adminLimitExceeded           (11),
                        unavailableCriticalExtension (12),
                        confidentialityRequired      (13),
                        saslBindInProgress           (14),
                        noSuchAttribute              (16),
                        undefinedAttributeType       (17),
                        inappropriateMatching        (18),
                        constraintViolation          (19),
                        attributeOrValueExists       (20),
                        invalidAttributeSyntax       (21),
                                        -- 22-31 unused --
                        noSuchObject                 (32),
                        aliasProblem                 (33),
                        invalidDNSyntax              (34),
                        -- 35 reserved for undefined isLeaf --
                        aliasDereferencingProblem    (36),
                                        -- 37-47 unused --
                        inappropriateAuthentication  (48),
                        invalidCredentials           (49),
                        insufficientAccessRights     (50),
                        busy                         (51),
                        unavailable                  (52),
                        unwillingToPerform           (53),
                        loopDetect                   (54),
                                        -- 55-63 unused --
                        namingViolation              (64),
                        objectClassViolation         (65),
                        notAllowedOnNonLeaf          (66),
                        notAllowedOnRDN              (67),
                        entryAlreadyExists           (68),
                        objectClassModsProhibited    (69),
                                -- 70 reserved for CLDAP --
                        affectsMultipleDSAs          (71),
                                        -- 72-79 unused --
                        other                        (80),
                        ... },
                        -- 81-90 reserved for APIs --
                matchedDN               LDAPDN,
                diagnosticMessage       LDAPString,
                referral                [3] Referral OPTIONAL }

   The result codes enumeration is extensible as defined in Section 3.5
   of [LDAPIANA]. The meanings of the result codes are given in Appendix
   A.

   The diagnosticMessage field of this construct may, at the server's
   option, be used to return a string containing a textual, human-
   readable (terminal control and page formatting characters should be

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004               Page 9 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   avoided) diagnostic message. As this diagnostic message is not
   standardized, implementations MUST NOT rely on the values returned.
   If the server chooses not to return a textual diagnostic, the
   diagnosticMessage field of the LDAPResult type MUST contain a zero
   length string.

   For certain result codes (typically, but not restricted to
   noSuchObject, aliasProblem, invalidDNSyntax and
   aliasDereferencingProblem), the matchedDN field is set to the name of
   the lowest entry (object or alias) in the directory that was matched.
   If no aliases were dereferenced while attempting to locate the entry,
   this will be a truncated form of the name provided, or if aliases
   were dereferenced, of the resulting name, as defined in section 12.5
   of [X.511]. The matchedDN field contains a zero length string with
   all other result codes.


4.1.10. Referral

   The referral result code indicates that the contacted server does not
   hold the target entry of the request. The referral field is present
   in an LDAPResult if the LDAPResult.resultCode field value is
   referral, and absent with all other result codes. It contains one or
   more references to one or more servers or services that may be
   accessed via LDAP or other protocols. Referrals can be returned in
   response to any operation request (except unbind and abandon which do
   not have responses). At least one URL MUST be present in the
   Referral.

   During a search operation, after the baseObject is located, and
   entries are being evaluated, the referral is not returned. Instead,
   continuation references, described in section 4.5.3, are returned
   when the search scope spans multiple naming contexts, and several
   different servers would need to be contacted to complete the
   operation.

        Referral ::= SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL  -- one or more

        LDAPURL ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in
                               -- URLs

   If the client wishes to progress the operation, it MUST follow the
   referral by contacting one of the servers. If multiple URLs are
   present, the client assumes that any URL may be used to progress the
   operation.

   URLs for servers implementing the LDAP protocol are written according
   to [LDAPURL]. If an alias was dereferenced, the <dn> part of the URL
   MUST be present, with the new target object name. If the <dn> part is
   present, the client MUST use this name in its next request to
   progress the operation, and if it is not present the client will use
   the same name as in the original request. Some servers (e.g.
   participating in distributed indexing) may provide a different filter
   in a referral for a search operation. If the filter part of the URL

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 10 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   is present in an LDAPURL, the client MUST use this filter in its next
   request to progress this search, and if it is not present the client
   MUST use the same filter as it used for that search. Other aspects of
   the new request may be the same or different as the request which
   generated the referral.

   Note that UTF-8 characters appearing in a DN or search filter may not
   be legal for URLs (e.g. spaces) and MUST be escaped using the %
   method in [RFC2396].

   Other kinds of URLs may be returned, so long as the operation could
   be performed using that protocol.


4.1.11. Controls

   A control is a way to specify extension information for an LDAP
   message. A control only alters the semantics of the message it is
   attached to.

        Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF Control

        Control ::= SEQUENCE {
                controlType             LDAPOID,
                criticality             BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
                controlValue            OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

   The controlType field MUST be a UTF-8 encoded dotted-decimal
   representation of an OBJECT IDENTIFIER which uniquely identifies the
   control. This prevents conflicts between control names.

   The criticality field is either TRUE or FALSE and only applies to
   request messages that have a corresponding response message. For all
   other messages (such as abandonRequest, unbindRequest and all
   response messages), the criticality field is treated as FALSE.

   If the server recognizes the control type and it is appropriate for
   the operation, the server will make use of the control when
   performing the operation.

   If the server does not recognize the control type or it is not
   appropriate for the operation, and the criticality field is TRUE, the
   server MUST NOT perform the operation, and MUST instead return the
   resultCode unavailableCriticalExtension.

   If the control is unrecognized or inappropriate but the criticality
   field is FALSE, the server MUST ignore the control.

   The controlValue contains any information associated with the
   control, and its format is defined for the control. Implementations
   MUST be prepared to handle arbitrary contents of the controlValue
   octet string, including zero bytes. It is absent only if there is no
   value information which is associated with a control of its type.


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 11 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   This document does not specify any controls. Controls may be
   specified in other documents. The specification of a control consists
   of:

   - the OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to the control,

   - whether the control is always noncritical, always critical, or
     critical at the client's option,

   - the format of the controlValue contents of the control,

   - the semantics of the control,

   - and optionally, semantics regarding the combination of the control
     with other controls.

   Servers list the controlType of all request controls they recognize
   in the supportedControl attribute [Models] in the root DSE.

   Controls should not be combined unless the semantics of the
   combination has been specified. The semantics of control
   combinations, if specified, are generally found in the control
   specification most recently published. In the absence of combination
   semantics, the behavior of the operation is undefined.
   Additionally, the order of a combination of controls in the SEQUENCE
   is ignored unless the control specification(s) describe(s)
   combination semantics.


4.2. Bind Operation

   The function of the Bind Operation is to allow authentication
   information to be exchanged between the client and server. Prior to
   the first BindRequest, the implied identity is anonymous. Refer to
   [AuthMeth] for the authentication-related semantics of this
   operation.

   The Bind Request is defined as follows:

        BindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 0] SEQUENCE {
                version                 INTEGER (1 .. 127),
                name                    LDAPDN,
                authentication          AuthenticationChoice }

        AuthenticationChoice ::= CHOICE {
                simple                  [0] OCTET STRING,
                                         -- 1 and 2 reserved
                sasl                    [3] SaslCredentials,
                ... }

        SaslCredentials ::= SEQUENCE {
                mechanism               LDAPString,
                credentials             OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 12 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   Parameters of the Bind Request are:

   - version: A version number indicating the version of the protocol
     to be used in this protocol association. This document describes
     version 3 of the LDAP protocol. Note that there is no version
     negotiation, and the client just sets this parameter to the
     version it desires. If the server does not support the specified
     version, it responds with protocolError in the resultCode field of
     the BindResponse.

   - name: The name of the directory object that the client wishes to
     bind as. This field may take on a null value (a zero length
     string) for the purposes of anonymous binds ([AuthMeth] section 7)
     or when using SASL authentication ([AuthMeth] section 4.3). Server
     behavior is undefined when the name is a null value, simple
     authentication is used, and a password is specified. The server
     SHOULD NOT perform any alias dereferencing in determining the
     object to bind as.

   - authentication: information used to authenticate the name, if any,
     provided in the Bind Request. This type is extensible as defined
     in Section 3.6 of [LDAPIANA]. Servers that do not support a choice
     supplied by a client will return authMethodNotSupported in the
     result code of the BindResponse. The simple form of an
     AuthenticationChoice specifies a simple password to be used for
     authentication. To improve matching, applications SHOULD prepare
     textual strings used as passwords. Applications which prepare
     textural strings used as password are REQUIRED to prepare them by
     transcoding the string to [Unicode], apply [SASLprep], and encode
     as UTF-8.

   Authorization is the use of this authentication information when
   performing operations. Authorization MAY be affected by factors
   outside of the LDAP Bind Request, such as lower layer security
   services.


4.2.1. Processing of the Bind Request

   Upon receipt of a BindRequest, the server MUST ensure there are no
   outstanding operations in progress on the connection (this simplifies
   server implementation). The server then proceeds to authenticate the
   client in either a single-step, or multi-step bind process. Each step
   requires the server to return a BindResponse to indicate the status
   of authentication.

   If the client did not bind before sending a request and receives an
   operationsError, it may then send a Bind Request. If this also fails
   or the client chooses not to bind on the existing connection, it may
   close the connection, reopen it and begin again by first sending a
   PDU with a Bind Request. This will aid in interoperating with servers
   implementing other versions of LDAP.



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 13 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   Clients MAY send multiple Bind Requests on a connection to change
   their credentials. Authentication from earlier binds is subsequently
   ignored. A failed or abandoned Bind Operation has the effect of
   leaving the LDAP association in an anonymous state. To arrive at a
   known authentication state after abandoning a bind operation, clients
   may unbind, rebind, or make use of the BindResponse. If a SASL
   transfer encryption or integrity mechanism has been negotiated, and
   that mechanism does not support the changing of credentials from one
   identity to another, then the client MUST instead establish a new
   connection.

   For some SASL authentication mechanisms, it may be necessary for the
   client to invoke the BindRequest multiple times. This is indicated by
   the server sending a BindResponse with the resultCode set to
   saslBindInProgress. This indicates that the server requires the
   client to send a new bind request, with the same sasl mechanism, to
   continue the authentication process. If at any stage the client
   wishes to abort the bind process it MAY unbind and then drop the
   underlying connection. Clients MUST NOT invoke operations between two
   Bind Requests made as part of a multi-stage bind.

   A client may abort a SASL bind negotiation by sending a BindRequest
   with a different value in the mechanism field of SaslCredentials, or
   an AuthenticationChoice other than sasl.

   If the client sends a BindRequest with the sasl mechanism field as an
   empty string, the server MUST return a BindResponse with
   authMethodNotSupported as the resultCode. This will allow clients to
   abort a negotiation if it wishes to try again with the same SASL
   mechanism.


4.2.2. Bind Response

   The Bind Response is defined as follows.

        BindResponse ::= [APPLICATION 1] SEQUENCE {
             COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
             serverSaslCreds    [7] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

   BindResponse consists simply of an indication from the server of the
   status of the client's request for authentication.

   A successful bind operation is indicated by a BindResponse with a
   resultCode set to success (0). Otherwise, an appropriate resultCode
   is set in the BindResponse. For bind, the protocolError (2)
   resultCode may be used to indicate that the version number supplied
   by the client is unsupported.

   If the client receives a BindResponse response where the resultCode
   was protocolError, it MUST close the connection as the server will be
   unwilling to accept further operations. (This is for compatibility
   with earlier versions of LDAP, in which the bind was always the first
   operation, and there was no negotiation.)

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 14 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   The serverSaslCreds are used as part of a SASL-defined bind mechanism
   to allow the client to authenticate the server to which it is
   communicating, or to perform "challenge-response" authentication. If
   the client bound with the simple choice, or the SASL mechanism does
   not require the server to return information to the client, then this
   field is not to be included in the result.


4.3. Unbind Operation

   The function of the Unbind Operation is to terminate an LDAP
   association and connection. The Unbind Operation is defined as
   follows:

        UnbindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 2] NULL

   The Unbind Operation has no response defined. Upon transmission of an
   UnbindRequest, a protocol client MUST assume that the LDAP
   association is terminated. Upon receipt of an UnbindRequest, a
   protocol server MUST assume that the requesting client has terminated
   the association and that all outstanding requests may be discarded,
   and MUST close the connection.


4.4. Unsolicited Notification

   An unsolicited notification is an LDAPMessage sent from the server to
   the client which is not in response to any LDAPMessage received by
   the server. It is used to signal an extraordinary condition in the
   server or in the connection between the client and the server. The
   notification is of an advisory nature, and the server will not expect
   any response to be returned from the client.

   The unsolicited notification is structured as an LDAPMessage in which
   the messageID is 0 and protocolOp is of the extendedResp form. The
   responseName field of the ExtendedResponse is present. The LDAPOID
   value MUST be unique for this notification, and not be used in any
   other situation.

   One unsolicited notification (Notice of Disconnection) is defined in
   this document.


4.4.1. Notice of Disconnection

   This notification may be used by the server to advise the client that
   the server is about to close the connection due to an error
   condition. Note that this notification is NOT a response to an unbind
   requested by the client: the server MUST follow the procedures of
   section 4.3. This notification is intended to assist clients in
   distinguishing between an error condition and a transient network
   failure. As with a connection close due to network failure, the


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 15 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   client MUST NOT assume that any outstanding requests which modified
   the directory have succeeded or failed.

   The responseName is 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20036, the response field is
   absent, and the resultCode is used to indicate the reason for the
   disconnection.

   The following resultCode values have these meanings when used in this
   notification:

   - protocolError: The server has received data from the client in
     which the LDAPMessage structure could not be parsed.

   - strongAuthRequired: The server has detected that an established
     underlying security association protecting communication between
     the client and server has unexpectedly failed or been compromised.

   - unavailable: This server will stop accepting new connections and
     operations on all existing connections, and be unavailable for an
     extended period of time. The client may make use of an alternative
     server.

   After sending this notice, the server MUST close the connection.
   After receiving this notice, the client MUST NOT transmit any further
   on the connection, and may abruptly close the connection.


4.5. Search Operation

   The Search Operation allows a client to request that a search be
   performed on its behalf by a server. This can be used to read
   attributes from a single entry, from entries immediately below a
   particular entry, or a whole subtree of entries.


4.5.1. Search Request

   The Search Request is defined as follows:

        SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE {
                baseObject      LDAPDN,
                scope           ENUMERATED {
                        baseObject              (0),
                        singleLevel             (1),
                        wholeSubtree            (2) },
                derefAliases    ENUMERATED {
                        neverDerefAliases       (0),
                        derefInSearching        (1),
                        derefFindingBaseObj     (2),
                        derefAlways             (3) },
                sizeLimit       INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
                timeLimit       INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
                typesOnly       BOOLEAN,
                filter          Filter,

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 16 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

                attributes      AttributeDescriptionList }

        Filter ::= CHOICE {
                and             [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter,
                or              [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter,
                not             [2] Filter,
                equalityMatch   [3] AttributeValueAssertion,
                substrings      [4] SubstringFilter,
                greaterOrEqual  [5] AttributeValueAssertion,
                lessOrEqual     [6] AttributeValueAssertion,
                present         [7] AttributeDescription,
                approxMatch     [8] AttributeValueAssertion,
                extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion }

        SubstringFilter ::= SEQUENCE {
                type            AttributeDescription,
                -- at least one must be present,
                -- initial and final can occur at most once
                substrings      SEQUENCE OF CHOICE {
                        initial [0] AssertionValue,
                        any     [1] AssertionValue,
                        final   [2] AssertionValue } }

        MatchingRuleAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
                matchingRule    [1] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL,
                type            [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,
                matchValue      [3] AssertionValue,
                dnAttributes    [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }

   Parameters of the Search Request are:

   - baseObject: An LDAPDN that is the base object entry relative to
     which the search is to be performed.

   - scope: An indicator of the scope of the search to be performed.
     The semantics of the possible values of this field are identical
     to the semantics of the scope field in the X.511 Search Operation.

   - derefAliases: An indicator as to how alias objects (as defined in
     [X.501]) are to be handled in searching. The semantics of the
     possible values of this field are:

             neverDerefAliases: Do not dereference aliases in searching
             or in locating the base object of the search.

             derefInSearching: While searching, dereference any alias
             object subordinate to the base object which is also in the
             search scope. The filter is applied to the dereferenced
             object(s). If the search scope is wholeSubtree, the search
             continues in the subtree of any dereferenced object.
             Aliases in that subtree are also dereferenced. Servers
             SHOULD detect looping in this process to prevent denial of
             service attacks and duplicate entries.


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 17 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

             derefFindingBaseObj: Dereference aliases in locating the
             base object of the search, but not when searching
             subordinates of the base object.

             derefAlways: Dereference aliases both in searching and in
             locating the base object of the search.

   - sizeLimit: A size limit that restricts the maximum number of
     entries to be returned as a result of the search. A value of 0 in
     this field indicates that no client-requested size limit
     restrictions are in effect for the search. Servers may enforce a
     maximum number of entries to return.

   - timeLimit: A time limit that restricts the maximum time (in
     seconds) allowed for a search. A value of 0 in this field
     indicates that no client-requested time limit restrictions are in
     effect for the search.

   - typesOnly: An indicator as to whether search results will contain
     both attribute descriptions and values, or just attribute
     descriptions. Setting this field to TRUE causes only attribute
     descriptions (no values) to be returned. Setting this field to
     FALSE causes both attribute descriptions and values to be
     returned.

   - filter: A filter that defines the conditions that must be
     fulfilled in order for the search to match a given entry.

     The 'and', 'or' and 'not' choices can be used to form combinations
     of filters. At least one filter element MUST be present in an
     'and' or 'or' choice. The others match against individual
     attribute values of entries in the scope of the search.
     (Implementor's note: the 'not' filter is an example of a tagged
     choice in an implicitly-tagged module. In BER this is treated as
     if the tag was explicit.)

     A server MUST evaluate filters according to the three-valued logic
     of X.511 (1993) section 7.8.1. In summary, a filter is evaluated
     to either "TRUE", "FALSE" or "Undefined". If the filter evaluates
     to TRUE for a particular entry, then the attributes of that entry
     are returned as part of the search result (subject to any
     applicable access control restrictions). If the filter evaluates
     to FALSE or Undefined, then the entry is ignored for the search.

     A filter of the "and" choice is TRUE if all the filters in the SET
     OF evaluate to TRUE, FALSE if at least one filter is FALSE, and
     otherwise Undefined. A filter of the "or" choice is FALSE if all
     of the filters in the SET OF evaluate to FALSE, TRUE if at least
     one filter is TRUE, and Undefined otherwise. A filter of the "not"
     choice is TRUE if the filter being negated is FALSE, FALSE if it
     is TRUE, and Undefined if it is Undefined.

     The present match evaluates to TRUE where there is an attribute or
     subtype of the specified attribute description present in an

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 18 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

     entry, and FALSE otherwise (including a presence test with an
     unrecognized attribute description.)

     The matching rule for equalityMatch filter items is defined by the
     EQUALITY matching rule for the attribute type.

     The matching rule for AssertionValues in a substrings filter item
     is defined by the SUBSTR matching rule for the attribute type.

     The matching rule for greaterOrEqual and lessOrEqual filter items
     is defined by the ORDERING matching rule for the attribute type.

     The matching semantics for approxMatch filter items is
     implementation-defined. If approximate matching is not supported
     by the server, the filter item should be treated as an
     equalityMatch.

     The extensibleMatch is new in this version of LDAP. If the
     matchingRule field is absent, the type field MUST be present, and
     the equality match is performed for that type. If the type field
     is absent and matchingRule is present, the matchValue is compared
     against all attributes in an entry which support that
     matchingRule, and the matchingRule determines the syntax for the
     assertion value (the filter item evaluates to TRUE if it matches
     with at least one attribute in the entry, FALSE if it does not
     match any attribute in the entry, and Undefined if the
     matchingRule is not recognized or the assertionValue cannot be
     parsed.) If the type field is present and matchingRule is present,
     the matchingRule MUST be one permitted for use with that type,
     otherwise the filter item is undefined. If the dnAttributes field
     is set to TRUE, the match is applied against all the
     AttributeValueAssertions in an entry's distinguished name as well,
     and also evaluates to TRUE if there is at least one attribute in
     the distinguished name for which the filter item evaluates to
     TRUE. (Editors note: The dnAttributes field is present so that
     there does not need to be multiple versions of generic matching
     rules such as for word matching, one to apply to entries and
     another to apply to entries and dn attributes as well).

     A filter item evaluates to Undefined when the server would not be
     able to determine whether the assertion value matches an entry. If
     an attribute description in an equalityMatch, substrings,
     greaterOrEqual, lessOrEqual, approxMatch or extensibleMatch filter
     is not recognized by the server, a matching rule id in the
     extensibleMatch is not recognized by the server, the assertion
     value cannot be parsed, or the type of filtering requested is not
     implemented, then the filter is Undefined. Thus for example if a
     server did not recognize the attribute type shoeSize, a filter of
     (shoeSize=*) would evaluate to FALSE, and the filters
     (shoeSize=12), (shoeSize>=12) and (shoeSize<=12) would evaluate to
     Undefined.

     Servers MUST NOT return errors if attribute descriptions or
     matching rule ids are not recognized, or assertion values cannot

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 19 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

     be parsed. More details of filter processing are given in section
     7.8 of [X.511].

   - attributes: A list of the attributes to be returned from each
     entry which matches the search filter. There are two special
     values which may be used: an empty list with no attributes, and
     the attribute description string "*". Both of these signify that
     all user attributes are to be returned. (The "*" allows the client
     to request all user attributes in addition to any specified
     operational attributes).

     Attributes MUST be named at most once in the list, and are
     returned at most once in an entry. If there are attribute
     descriptions in the list which are not recognized, they are
     ignored by the server.

     If the client does not want any attributes returned, it can
     specify a list containing only the attribute with OID "1.1". This
     OID was chosen arbitrarily and does not correspond to any
     attribute in use.

     Client implementors should note that even if all user attributes
     are requested, some attributes of the entry may not be included in
     search results due to access controls or other restrictions.
     Furthermore, servers will not return operational attributes, such
     as objectClasses or attributeTypes, unless they are listed by
     name, since there may be extremely large number of values for
     certain operational attributes. (A list of operational attributes
     for use in LDAP is given in [Syntaxes].)

   Note that an X.500 "list"-like operation can be emulated by the
   client requesting a one-level LDAP search operation with a filter
   checking for the presence of the objectClass attribute, and that an
   X.500 "read"-like operation can be emulated by a base object LDAP
   search operation with the same filter. A server which provides a
   gateway to X.500 is not required to use the Read or List operations,
   although it may choose to do so, and if it does, it must provide the
   same semantics as the X.500 search operation.


4.5.2. Search Result

   The results of the search attempted by the server upon receipt of a
   Search Request are returned in Search Responses, which are LDAP
   messages containing either SearchResultEntry, SearchResultReference,
   or SearchResultDone data types.

        SearchResultEntry ::= [APPLICATION 4] SEQUENCE {
                objectName      LDAPDN,
                attributes      PartialAttributeList }

        PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
                type    AttributeDescription,
                vals    SET OF AttributeValue }

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 20 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

        -- implementors should note that the PartialAttributeList may
        -- have zero elements (if none of the attributes of that entry
        -- were requested, or could be returned), and that the vals set
        -- may also have zero elements (if types only was requested, or
        -- all values were excluded from the result.)

        SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL
        -- at least one LDAPURL element must be present

        SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult

   Upon receipt of a Search Request, a server will perform the necessary
   search of the DIT.

   If the LDAP association is operating over a connection-oriented
   transport such as TCP, the server will return to the client a
   sequence of responses in separate LDAP messages. There may be zero or
   more responses containing SearchResultEntry, one for each entry found
   during the search. There may also be zero or more responses
   containing SearchResultReference, one for each area not explored by
   this server during the search. The SearchResultEntry and
   SearchResultReference PDUs may come in any order. Following all the
   SearchResultReference responses and all SearchResultEntry responses
   to be returned by the server, the server will return a response
   containing the SearchResultDone, which contains an indication of
   success, or detailing any errors that have occurred.

   Each entry returned in a SearchResultEntry will contain all
   appropriate attributes as specified in the attributes field of the
   Search Request. Return of attributes is subject to access control and
   other administrative policy.

   Some attributes may be constructed by the server and appear in a
   SearchResultEntry attribute list, although they are not stored
   attributes of an entry. Clients SHOULD NOT assume that all attributes
   can be modified, even if permitted by access control.

   If the server's schema defines a textual name for an attribute type,
   it SHOULD use a textual name for attributes of that attribute type by
   specifying one of the textual names as the value of the attribute
   type. Otherwise, the server uses the object identifier for the
   attribute type by specifying the object identifier, in ldapOID form,
   as the value of attribute type. If the server determines that
   returning a textual name will cause interoperability problems, it
   SHOULD return the ldapOID form of the attribute type.


4.5.3. Continuation References in the Search Result

   If the server was able to locate the entry referred to by the
   baseObject but was unable to search all the entries in the scope at
   and under the baseObject, the server may return one or more
   SearchResultReference entries, each containing a reference to another
   set of servers for continuing the operation. A server MUST NOT return

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 21 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   any SearchResultReference if it has not located the baseObject and
   thus has not searched any entries; in this case it would return a
   SearchResultDone containing a referral resultCode.

   If a server holds a copy or partial copy of the subordinate naming
   context, it may use the search filter to determine whether or not to
   return a SearchResultReference response. Otherwise
   SearchResultReference responses are always returned when in scope.

   The SearchResultReference is of the same data type as the Referral.
   URLs for servers implementing the LDAP protocol are written according
   to [LDAPURL]. The <dn> part MUST be present in the URL, with the new
   target object name. The client MUST use this name in its next
   request. Some servers (e.g. part of a distributed index exchange
   system) may provide a different filter in the URLs of the
   SearchResultReference. If the filter part of the URL is present in an
   LDAP URL, the client MUST use the new filter in its next request to
   progress the search, and if the filter part is absent the client will
   use again the same filter. If the originating search scope was
   singleLevel, the scope part of the URL will be baseObject. Other
   aspects of the new search request may be the same or different as the
   search which generated the continuation references.
   Other kinds of URLs may be returned so long as the operation could be
   performed using that protocol.

   The name of an unexplored subtree in a SearchResultReference need not
   be subordinate to the base object.

   In order to complete the search, the client MUST issue a new search
   operation for each SearchResultReference that is returned. Note that
   the abandon operation described in section 4.11 applies only to a
   particular operation sent on an association between a client and
   server, and if the client has multiple outstanding search operations,
   it MUST abandon each operation individually.


4.5.3.1. Example

   For example, suppose the contacted server (hosta) holds the entry
   "DC=Example,DC=NET" and the entry "CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET". It
   knows that either LDAP-capable servers (hostb) or (hostc) hold
   "OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET" (one is the master and the other server
   a shadow), and that LDAP-capable server (hostd) holds the subtree
   "OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET". If a subtree search of
   "DC=Example,DC=NET" is requested to the contacted server, it may
   return the following:

     SearchResultEntry for DC=Example,DC=NET
     SearchResultEntry for CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET
     SearchResultReference {
       ldap://hostb/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
       ldap://hostc/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
     }
     SearchResultReference {

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 22 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

       ldap://hostd/OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET
     }
     SearchResultDone (success)

   Client implementors should note that when following a
   SearchResultReference, additional SearchResultReference may be
   generated. Continuing the example, if the client contacted the server
   (hostb) and issued the search for the subtree
   "OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET", the server might respond as follows:

     SearchResultEntry for OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
     SearchResultReference {
       ldap://hoste/OU=Managers,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
     }
     SearchResultReference {
       ldap://hostf/OU=Consultants,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
     }
     SearchResultDone (success)

   If the contacted server does not hold the base object for the search,
   then it will return a referral to the client. For example, if the
   client requests a subtree search of "DC=Example,DC=ORG" to hosta, the
   server may return only a SearchResultDone containing a referral.

     SearchResultDone (referral) {
       ldap://hostg/DC=Example,DC=ORG??sub
     }


4.6. Modify Operation

   The Modify Operation allows a client to request that a modification
   of an entry be performed on its behalf by a server. The Modify
   Request is defined as follows:

        ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE {
                object          LDAPDN,
                modification    SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
                        operation       ENUMERATED {
                                                add     (0),
                                                delete  (1),
                                                replace (2) },
                        modification    AttributeTypeAndValues } }

        AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE {
                type    AttributeDescription,
                vals    SET OF AttributeValue }

   Parameters of the Modify Request are:

   - object: The object to be modified. The value of this field
     contains the DN of the entry to be modified. The server will not
     perform any alias dereferencing in determining the object to be
     modified.

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 23 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   - modification: A list of modifications to be performed on the
     entry. The entire list of entry modifications MUST be performed in
     the order they are listed, as a single atomic operation. While
     individual modifications may violate the directory schema, the
     resulting entry after the entire list of modifications is
     performed MUST conform to the requirements of the directory
     schema. The values that may be taken on by the 'operation' field
     in each modification construct have the following semantics
     respectively:

             add: add values listed to the given attribute, creating the
             attribute if necessary;

             delete: delete values listed from the given attribute,
             removing the entire attribute if no values are listed, or
             if all current values of the attribute are listed for
             deletion;

             replace: replace all existing values of the given attribute
             with the new values listed, creating the attribute if it
             did not already exist. A replace with no value will delete
             the entire attribute if it exists, and is ignored if the
             attribute does not exist.

   The result of the modification attempted by the server upon receipt
   of a Modify Request is returned in a Modify Response, defined as
   follows:

        ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult

   Upon receipt of a Modify Request, a server will perform the necessary
   modifications to the DIT.

   The server will return to the client a single Modify Response
   indicating either the successful completion of the DIT modification,
   or the reason that the modification failed. Note that due to the
   requirement for atomicity in applying the list of modifications in
   the Modify Request, the client may expect that no modifications of
   the DIT have been performed if the Modify Response received indicates
   any sort of error, and that all requested modifications have been
   performed if the Modify Response indicates successful completion of
   the Modify Operation. If the association changes or the connection
   fails, whether the modification occurred or not is indeterminate.

   The Modify Operation cannot be used to remove from an entry any of
   its distinguished values, those values which form the entry's
   relative distinguished name. An attempt to do so will result in the
   server returning the error notAllowedOnRDN. The Modify DN Operation
   described in section 4.9 is used to rename an entry.

   Note that due to the simplifications made in LDAP, there is not a
   direct mapping of the modifications in an LDAP ModifyRequest onto the
   EntryModifications of a DAP ModifyEntry operation, and different

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 24 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   implementations of LDAP-DAP gateways may use different means of
   representing the change. If successful, the final effect of the
   operations on the entry MUST be identical.


4.7. Add Operation

   The Add Operation allows a client to request the addition of an entry
   into the directory. The Add Request is defined as follows:

        AddRequest ::= [APPLICATION 8] SEQUENCE {
                entry           LDAPDN,
                attributes      AttributeList }

        AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
                type    AttributeDescription,
                vals    SET OF AttributeValue }

   Parameters of the Add Request are:

   - entry: the Distinguished Name of the entry to be added. Note that
     the server will not dereference any aliases in locating the entry
     to be added.

   - attributes: the list of attributes that make up the content of the
     entry being added. Clients MUST include distinguished values
     (those forming the entry's own RDN) in this list, the objectClass
     attribute, and values of any mandatory attributes of the listed
     object classes. Clients MUST NOT supply NO-USER-MODIFICATION
     attributes such as the createTimestamp or creatorsName attributes,
     since the server maintains these automatically.

   The entry named in the entry field of the AddRequest MUST NOT exist
   for the AddRequest to succeed. The immediate superior (parent) of the
   object and alias entries to be added MUST exist. For example, if the
   client attempted to add "CN=JS,DC=Example,DC=NET", the
   "DC=Example,DC=NET" entry did not exist, and the "DC=NET" entry did
   exist, then the server would return the error noSuchObject with the
   matchedDN field containing "DC=NET". If the parent entry exists but
   is not in a naming context held by the server, the server SHOULD
   return a referral to the server holding the parent entry.

   Server implementations SHOULD NOT restrict where entries can be
   located in the directory unless DIT structure rules are in place.
   Some servers MAY allow the administrator to restrict the classes of
   entries which can be added to the directory.

   Upon receipt of an Add Request, a server will attempt to add the
   requested entry. The result of the add attempt will be returned to
   the client in the Add Response, defined as follows:

        AddResponse ::= [APPLICATION 9] LDAPResult



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 25 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   A response of success indicates that the new entry is present in the
   directory.


4.8. Delete Operation

   The Delete Operation allows a client to request the removal of an
   entry from the directory. The Delete Request is defined as follows:

        DelRequest ::= [APPLICATION 10] LDAPDN

   The Delete Request consists of the Distinguished Name of the entry to
   be deleted. Note that the server will not dereference aliases while
   resolving the name of the target entry to be removed, and that only
   leaf entries (those with no subordinate entries) can be deleted with
   this operation.

   The result of the delete attempted by the server upon receipt of a
   Delete Request is returned in the Delete Response, defined as
   follows:

        DelResponse ::= [APPLICATION 11] LDAPResult

   Upon receipt of a Delete Request, a server will attempt to perform
   the entry removal requested. The result of the delete attempt will be
   returned to the client in the Delete Response.


4.9. Modify DN Operation

   The Modify DN Operation allows a client to change the leftmost (least
   significant) component of the name of an entry in the directory,
   and/or to move a subtree of entries to a new location in the
   directory. The Modify DN Request is defined as follows:

        ModifyDNRequest ::= [APPLICATION 12] SEQUENCE {
                entry           LDAPDN,
                newrdn          RelativeLDAPDN,
                deleteoldrdn    BOOLEAN,
                newSuperior     [0] LDAPDN OPTIONAL }

   Parameters of the Modify DN Request are:

   - entry: the Distinguished Name of the entry to be changed. This
     entry may or may not have subordinate entries. Note that the
     server will not dereference any aliases in locating the entry to
     be changed.

   - newrdn: the RDN that will form the leftmost component of the new
     name of the entry.

   - deleteoldrdn: a boolean parameter that controls whether the old
     RDN attribute values are to be retained as attributes of the
     entry, or deleted from the entry.

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 26 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   - newSuperior: if present, this is the Distinguished Name of an
     existing object entry which becomes the immediate superior
     (parent)of the existing entry.

   The result of the name change attempted by the server upon receipt of
   a Modify DN Request is returned in the Modify DN Response, defined as
   follows:

        ModifyDNResponse ::= [APPLICATION 13] LDAPResult

   Upon receipt of a ModifyDNRequest, a server will attempt to perform
   the name change. The result of the name change attempt will be
   returned to the client in the Modify DN Response.

   For example, if the entry named in the "entry" parameter was "cn=John
   Smith,c=US", the newrdn parameter was "cn=John Cougar Smith", and the
   newSuperior parameter was absent, then this operation would attempt
   to rename the entry to be "cn=John Cougar Smith,c=US". If there was
   already an entry with that name, the operation would fail with error
   code entryAlreadyExists.

   The object named in newSuperior MUST exist. For example, if the
   client attempted to add "CN=JS,DC=Example,DC=NET", the
   "DC=Example,DC=NET" entry did not exist, and the "DC=NET" entry did
   exist, then the server would return the error noSuchObject with the
   matchedDN field containing "DC=NET".

   If the deleteoldrdn parameter is TRUE, the values forming the old RDN
   are deleted from the entry. If the deleteoldrdn parameter is FALSE,
   the values forming the old RDN will be retained as non-distinguished
   attribute values of the entry. The server may not perform the
   operation and return an error code if the setting of the deleteoldrdn
   parameter would cause a schema inconsistency in the entry.

   Note that X.500 restricts the ModifyDN operation to only affect
   entries that are contained within a single server. If the LDAP server
   is mapped onto DAP, then this restriction will apply, and the
   resultCode affectsMultipleDSAs will be returned if this error
   occurred. In general clients MUST NOT expect to be able to perform
   arbitrary movements of entries and subtrees between servers.


4.10. Compare Operation

   The Compare Operation allows a client to compare an assertion
   provided with an entry in the directory. The Compare Request is
   defined as follows:

        CompareRequest ::= [APPLICATION 14] SEQUENCE {
                entry           LDAPDN,
                ava             AttributeValueAssertion }

   Parameters of the Compare Request are:

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 27 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   - entry: the name of the entry to be compared with. Note that the
     server SHOULD NOT dereference any aliases in locating the entry to
     be compared with.

   - ava: the assertion with which an attribute in the entry is to be
     compared.

   The result of the compare attempted by the server upon receipt of a
   Compare Request is returned in the Compare Response, defined as
   follows:

        CompareResponse ::= [APPLICATION 15] LDAPResult

   Upon receipt of a Compare Request, a server will attempt to perform
   the requested comparison using the EQUALITY matching rule for the
   attribute type. The result of the comparison will be returned to the
   client in the Compare Response. Note that errors and the result of
   comparison are all returned in the same construct.

   Note that some directory systems may establish access controls which
   permit the values of certain attributes (such as userPassword) to be
   compared but not interrogated by other means.


4.11. Abandon Operation

   The function of the Abandon Operation is to allow a client to request
   that the server abandon an outstanding operation. The Abandon Request
   is defined as follows:

        AbandonRequest ::= [APPLICATION 16] MessageID

   The MessageID MUST be that of an operation which was requested
   earlier in this LDAP association. The abandon request itself has its
   own message id. This is distinct from the id of the earlier operation
   being abandoned.

   There is no response defined in the Abandon Operation. Upon
   transmission of an Abandon Operation, the server MAY abandon the
   operation identified by the Message ID in the Abandon Request.
   Operation responses are not sent for successfully abandoned
   operations. Clients can determine that an operation has been
   abandoned by performing a subsequent bind operation.

   Abandon and Unbind operations cannot be abandoned. The ability to
   abandon other (particularly update) operations is at the discretion
   of the server.

   In the event that a server receives an Abandon Request on a Search
   Operation in the midst of transmitting responses to the search, that
   server MUST cease transmitting entry responses to the abandoned
   request immediately, and MUST NOT send the SearchResponseDone. Of


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 28 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   course, the server MUST ensure that only properly encoded LDAPMessage
   PDUs are transmitted.

   Clients MUST NOT send abandon requests for the same operation
   multiple times, and MUST also be prepared to receive results from
   operations it has abandoned (since these may have been in transit
   when the abandon was requested, or are not able to be abandoned).

   Servers MUST discard abandon requests for message IDs they do not
   recognize, for operations which cannot be abandoned, and for
   operations which have already been abandoned.


4.12. Extended Operation

   An extension mechanism has been added in this version of LDAP, in
   order to allow additional operations to be defined for services not
   available elsewhere in this protocol, for instance digitally signed
   operations and results.

   The extended operation allows clients to make requests and receive
   responses with predefined syntaxes and semantics. These may be
   defined in RFCs or be private to particular implementations. Each
   request MUST have a unique OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to it.

        ExtendedRequest ::= [APPLICATION 23] SEQUENCE {
                requestName      [0] LDAPOID,
                requestValue     [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

   The requestName is a dotted-decimal representation of the OBJECT
   IDENTIFIER corresponding to the request. The requestValue is
   information in a form defined by that request, encapsulated inside an
   OCTET STRING.

   The server will respond to this with an LDAPMessage containing the
   ExtendedResponse.

        ExtendedResponse ::= [APPLICATION 24] SEQUENCE {
                COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
                responseName     [10] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
                response         [11] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

   If the server does not recognize the request name, it MUST return
   only the response fields from LDAPResult, containing the
   protocolError result code.

4.13. Start TLS Operation

   The Start Transport Layer Security (StartTLS) operation provides the
   ability to establish Transport Layer Security [RFC2246] on an LDAP
   connection.

4.13.1. Start TLS Request

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 29 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   A client requests TLS establishment by transmitting a Start TLS
   request PDU to the server. The Start TLS request is defined in terms
   of an ExtendedRequest. The requestName is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037",
   and the requestValue field is absent.

   The client MUST NOT send any PDUs on this connection following this
   request until it receives a Start TLS extended response.

4.13.2. Start TLS Response

   When a Start TLS request is made, servers supporting the operation
   MUST return a Start TLS response PDU to the requestor.  The Start TLS
   response responseName is also "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037", and the
   response field is absent.

   The server MUST set the resultCode field to either success or one of
   the other values outlined in section 4.13.2.2.

4.13.2.1. "Success" Response

   If the Start TLS Response contains a resultCode of success, this
   indicates that the server is willing and able to negotiate TLS. Refer
   to section 5.3 of [AuthMeth] for details.

4.13.2.2. Response other than "success"

   If the ExtendedResponse contains a resultCode other than success,
   this indicates that the server is unwilling or unable to negotiate
   TLS. The following resultCodes have these meanings for this
   operation:

   operationsError  (operations sequencing incorrect; e.g. TLS already
                     established)

   protocolError    (TLS not supported or incorrect PDU structure)

   unavailable      (e.g. some major problem with TLS, or server is
                     shutting down)

   The server MUST return operationsError if the client violates any of
   the Start TLS extended operation sequencing requirements described in
   section 5.3 of [AuthMeth].

   If the server does not support TLS (whether by design or by current
   configuration), it MUST set the resultCode to protocolError. The
   client's current association is unaffected if the server does not
   support TLS. The client MAY proceed with any LDAP operation, or it
   MAY close the connection.

   The server MUST return unavailable if it supports TLS but cannot
   establish a TLS connection for some reason, e.g. the certificate
   server not responding, it cannot contact its TLS implementation, or

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 30 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   if the server is in process of shutting down. The client MAY retry
   the StartTLS operation, or it MAY proceed with any other LDAP
   operation, or it MAY close the LDAP connection.

4.13.3. Closing a TLS Connection

   Two forms of TLS connection closure--graceful and abrupt--are
   supported.

4.13.3.1. Graceful Closure

   Either the client or server MAY terminate the TLS connection and
   leave the LDAP connection intact by sending a TLS closure alert.

   Before sending a TLS closure alert, the client MUST either wait for
   any outstanding LDAP operations to complete, or explicitly abandon
   them.

   After the initiator of a close has sent a TLS closure alert, it MUST
   discard any TLS messages until it has received a TLS closure alert
   from the other party.  It will cease to send TLS Record Protocol
   PDUs, and following the receipt of the alert, MAY send and receive
   LDAP PDUs.

   The other party, if it receives a TLS closure alert, MUST immediately
   transmit a TLS closure alert.  It will subsequently cease to send TLS
   Record Protocol PDUs, and MAY send and receive LDAP PDUs.

4.13.3.2. Abrupt Closure

   Either the client or server MAY abruptly close the TLS connection by
   dropping the underlying transfer protocol connection. In this
   circumstance, a server MAY send the client a Notice of Disconnection
   before dropping the underlying LDAP connection.


5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer

   One underlying service is defined here. Clients and servers SHOULD
   implement the mapping of LDAP over TCP described in 5.2.1.


5.1. Protocol Encoding

   The protocol elements of LDAP are encoded for exchange using the
   Basic Encoding Rules (BER) [X.690] of ASN.1 [X.680]. However, due to
   the high overhead involved in using certain elements of the BER, the
   following additional restrictions are placed on BER-encodings of LDAP
   protocol elements:

   (1) Only the definite form of length encoding will be used.

   (2) OCTET STRING values will be encoded in the primitive form only.

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 31 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   (3) If the value of a BOOLEAN type is true, the encoding MUST have
       its contents octets set to hex "FF".

   (4) If a value of a type is its default value, it MUST be absent.
       Only some BOOLEAN and INTEGER types have default values in this
       protocol definition.

   These restrictions do not apply to ASN.1 types encapsulated inside of
   OCTET STRING values, such as attribute values, unless otherwise
   noted.


5.2. Transfer Protocols

   This protocol is designed to run over connection-oriented, reliable
   transports, with all 8 bits in an octet being significant in the data
   stream.


5.2.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

   The encoded LDAPMessage PDUs are mapped directly onto the TCP
   bytestream using the BER-based encoding described in section 5.1. It
   is recommended that server implementations running over the TCP
   provide a protocol listener on the assigned port, 389. Servers may
   instead provide a listener on a different port number. Clients MUST
   support contacting servers on any valid TCP port.


6. Implementation Guidelines


6.1. Server Implementations

   The server MUST be capable of recognizing all the mandatory attribute
   type names and implement the syntaxes specified in [Syntaxes].
   Servers MAY also recognize additional attribute type names.


6.2. Client Implementations

   Clients that follow referrals or search continuation references MUST
   ensure that they do not loop between servers. They MUST NOT
   repeatedly contact the same server for the same request with the same
   target entry name, scope and filter. Some clients use a counter that
   is incremented each time referral handling occurs for an operation,
   and these kinds of clients MUST be able to handle a DIT with at least
   ten layers of naming contexts between the root and a leaf entry.

   In the absence of prior agreements with servers, clients SHOULD NOT
   assume that servers support any particular schemas beyond those
   referenced in section 6.1. Different schemas can have different
   attribute types with the same names. The client can retrieve the

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 32 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   subschema entries referenced by the subschemaSubentry attribute in
   the entries held by the server.


7. Security Considerations

   When used with a connection-oriented transport, this version of the
   protocol provides facilities for simple authentication using a
   cleartext password, as well as any SASL mechanism [RFC2222]. SASL
   allows for integrity and privacy services to be negotiated.

   It is also permitted that the server can return its credentials to
   the client, if it chooses to do so.

   Use of cleartext password is strongly discouraged where the
   underlying transport service cannot guarantee confidentiality and may
   result in disclosure of the password to unauthorized parties.

   When used with SASL, it should be noted that the name field of the
   BindRequest is not protected against modification. Thus if the
   distinguished name of the client (an LDAPDN) is agreed through the
   negotiation of the credentials, it takes precedence over any value in
   the unprotected name field.

   Implementations which cache attributes and entries obtained via LDAP
   MUST ensure that access controls are maintained if that information
   is to be provided to multiple clients, since servers may have access
   control policies which prevent the return of entries or attributes in
   search results except to particular authenticated clients. For
   example, caches could serve result information only to the client
   whose request caused it to be in the cache.

   Protocol servers may return referrals which redirect protocol clients
   to peer servers. It is possible for a rogue application to inject
   such referrals into the data stream in an attempt to redirect a
   client to a rogue server. Protocol clients are advised to be aware of
   this, and possibly reject referrals when confidentiality measures are
   in place. Protocol clients are advised to ignore referrals from the
   Start TLS operation.


8. Acknowledgements

   This document is an update to RFC 2251, by Mark Wahl, Tim Howes, and
   Steve Kille. Their work along with the input of individuals of the
   IETF LDAPEXT, LDUP, LDAPBIS, and other Working Groups is gratefully
   acknowledged.


9. Normative References

   [X.500]   ITU-T Rec. X.500, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts,
             Models and Service", 1993.


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 33 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   [Roadmap] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: Technical Specification Road
             Map", draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt (a work in
             progress).

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

   [X.680]   ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:1998
             Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One
             (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation

   [X.690]   ITU-T Rec. X.690, "Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules:
             Basic, Canonical, and Distinguished Encoding Rules", 1994.

   [LDAPIANA] K. Zeilenga, "IANA Considerations for LDAP", draft-ietf-
             ldapbis-xx.txt (a work in progress).

   [ISO10646] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -
             Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1
             : 1993.

   [RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode
             and ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.

   [Models]  K. Zeilenga, "LDAP: The Models", draft-ietf-ldapbis-
             models-xx.txt (a work in progress).

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

   [Syntaxes] K. Dally (editor), "LDAP: Syntaxes", draft-ietf-ldapbis-
             syntaxes-xx.txt, (a work in progress).

   [X.501]   ITU-T Rec. X.501, "The Directory: Models", 1993.

   [X.511]   ITU-T Rec. X.511, "The Directory: Abstract Service
             Definition", 1993.

   [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter Uniform
             Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396,
             August 1998.

   [AuthMeth] R. Harrison (editor), "LDAP: Authentication Methods",
             draft-ietf-ldapbis-authmeth-xx.txt, (a work in progress).

   [RFC2222] Meyers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer",
             RFC 2222, October 1997.

   [SASLPrep] Zeilenga, K., "Stringprep profile for user names and
             passwords", draft-ietf-sasl-saslprep-xx.txt, (a work in
             progress).



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 34 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   [Unicode] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
             3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0"
             (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5),
             as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex #27: Unicode
             3.1" (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the
             "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2"
             (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/).



10. Editor's Address

   Jim Sermersheim
   Novell, Inc.
   1800 South Novell Place
   Provo, Utah 84606, USA
   jimse@novell.com
   +1 801 861-3088





































Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 35 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes

   This normative appendix details additional considerations regarding
   LDAP result codes and provides a brief, general description of each
   LDAP result code enumerated in Section 4.1.10.

   Additional result codes MAY be defined for use with extensions.
   Client implementations SHALL treat any result code which they do not
   recognize as an unknown error condition.

A.1 Non-Error Result Codes
   These result codes (called "non-error" result codes) do not indicate
   an error condition:
        success(0),
        compareTrue(6),
        compareFalse(7),
        referral(10), and
        saslBindInProgress(14).

   The success(0), compareTrue(6), and compare(7) result codes indicate
   successful completion (and, hence, are called to as "successful"
   result codes).

   The referral(10) and saslBindInProgress(14) indicate the client is
   required to take additional action to complete the operation


A.2 Error Result Codes

A.3 Classes and Precedence of Error Result Codes

   Result codes that indicate error conditions (and, hence, are called
   "error" result codes) fall into 6 classes. The following list
   specifies the precedence of error classes to be used when more than
   one error is detected [X511]:
        1) Name Errors (codes 32 - 34, 36)
                - a problem related to a name (DN or RDN),
        2) Update Errors (codes 64 - 69, 71)
                - a problem related to an update operation,
        3) Attribute Errors (codes 16 - 21)
                - a problem related to a supplied attribute,
        4) Security Errors (codes 8, 13, 48 - 50)
                - a security related problem,
        5) Service Problem (codes 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 51 - 54, 80)
                - a problem related to the provision of the service, and
        6) Protocol Problem (codes 1, 2)
                - a problem related to protocol structure or semantics.

   If the server detects multiple errors simultaneously, the server
   SHOULD report the error with the highest precedence.

   Existing LDAP result codes are described as follows:

        success (0)

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 36 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


           Indicates successful completion of an operation.

           This result code is normally not returned by the compare
           operation, see compareFalse (5) and compareTrue (6). It is
           possible that a future extension mechanism would allow this
           to be returned by a compare operation.


        operationsError (1)

           Indicates that the operation is not properly sequenced with
           relation to other operations (of same or different type).

           For example, this code is returned if the client attempts to
           Start TLS [RFC2246] while there are other operations
           outstanding or if TLS was already established.



        protocolError (2)

           Indicates the server received data which has incorrect
           structure.

           For bind operation only, the code may be resulted to indicate
           the server does not support the requested protocol version.


        timeLimitExceeded (3)

           Indicates that the time limit specified by the client was
           exceeded before the operation could be completed.


        sizeLimitExceeded (4)

           Indicates that the size limit specified by the client was
           exceeded before the operation could be completed.


        compareFalse (5)

           Indicates that the operation successfully completes and the
           assertion has evaluated to FALSE.

           This result code is normally only returned by the compare
           operation.


        compareTrue (6)

           Indicates that the operation successfully completes and the
           assertion has evaluated to TRUE.

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 37 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


           This result code is normally only returned by the compare
           operation.


        authMethodNotSupported (7)

           Indicates that the authentication method or mechanism is not
           supported.


        strongAuthRequired (8)

           Except when returned in a Notice of Disconnect (see section
           4.4.1), this indicates that the server requires the client to
           authentication using a strong(er) mechanism.


        referral (10)

           Indicates that a referral needs to be chased to complete the
           operation (see section 4.1.11).


        adminLimitExceeded (11)

           Indicates that an administrative limit has been exceeded.


        unavailableCriticalExtension (12)

           Indicates that server cannot perform a critical extension
           (see section 4.1.12).


        confidentialityRequired (13)

           Indicates that data confidentiality protections are required.


        saslBindInProgress (14)

           Indicates the server requires the client to send a new bind
           request, with the same SASL mechanism, to continue the
           authentication process (see section 4.2).


        noSuchAttribute (16)

           Indicates that the named entry does not contain the specified
           attribute or attribute value.


        undefinedAttributeType (17)

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 38 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


           Indicates that a request field contains an undefined
           attribute type.


        inappropriateMatching (18)

           Indicates that a request cannot be completed due to an
           inappropriate matching.


        constraintViolation (19)

           Indicates that the client supplied an attribute value which
           does not conform to constraints placed upon it by the data
           model.

           For example, this code is returned when the multiple values
           are supplied to an attribute which has a SINGLE-VALUE
           constraint.


        attributeOrValueExists (20)

           Indicates that the client supplied an attribute or value to
           be added to an entry already exists.


        invalidAttributeSyntax (21)

           Indicates that a purported attribute value does not conform
           to the syntax of the attribute.


        noSuchObject (32)

           Indicates that the object does not exist in the DIT.


        aliasProblem (33)

           Indicates that an alias problem has occurred. Typically an
           alias has been dereferenced which names no object.


        invalidDNSyntax (34)

           Indicates that a LDAPDN or RelativeLDAPDN field (e.g. search
           base, target entry, ModifyDN newrdn, etc.) of a request does
           not conform to the required syntax or contains attribute
           values which do not conform to the syntax of the attribute's
           type.



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 39 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

        aliasDereferencingProblem (36)

           Indicates that a problem occurred while dereferencing an
           alias. Typically an alias was encountered in a situation
           where it was not allowed or where access was denied.


        inappropriateAuthentication (48)

           Indicates the server requires the client which had attempted
           to bind anonymously or without supplying credentials to
           provide some form of credentials,


        invalidCredentials (49)

           Indicates the supplied password or SASL credentials are
           invalid.


        insufficientAccessRights (50)

           Indicates that the client does not have sufficient access
           rights to perform the operation.


        busy (51)

           Indicates that the server is busy.


        unavailable (52)

           Indicates that the server is shutting down or a subsystem
           necessary to complete the operation is offline.


        unwillingToPerform (53)

           Indicates that the server is unwilling to perform the
           operation.


        loopDetect (54)

           Indicates that the server has detected an internal loop.


        namingViolation (64)

           Indicates that the entry name violates naming restrictions.

        objectClassViolation (65)


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 40 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

           Indicates that the entry violates object class restrictions.


        notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66)

           Indicates that operation is inappropriately acting upon a
           non-leaf entry.


        notAllowedOnRDN (67)

           Indicates that the operation is inappropriately attempting to
           remove a value which forms the entry's relative distinguished
           name.


        entryAlreadyExists (68)

           Indicates that the request cannot be added fulfilled as the
           entry already exists.


        objectClassModsProhibited (69)

           Indicates that the attempt to modify the object class(es) of
           an entry objectClass attribute is prohibited.

           For example, this code is returned when a when a client
           attempts to modify the structural object class of an entry.


        affectsMultipleDSAs (71)

           Indicates that the operation cannot be completed as it
           affects multiple servers (DSAs).


        other (80)

           Indicates the server has encountered an internal error.















Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 41 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   Appendix B - Complete ASN.1 Definition

        This appendix is normative.

        Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol-V3 DEFINITIONS
        IMPLICIT TAGS
        EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED ::=

        BEGIN

        LDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
                messageID       MessageID,
                protocolOp      CHOICE {
                        bindRequest     BindRequest,
                        bindResponse    BindResponse,
                        unbindRequest   UnbindRequest,
                        searchRequest   SearchRequest,
                        searchResEntry  SearchResultEntry,
                        searchResDone   SearchResultDone,
                        searchResRef    SearchResultReference,
                        modifyRequest   ModifyRequest,
                        modifyResponse  ModifyResponse,
                        addRequest      AddRequest,
                        addResponse     AddResponse,
                        delRequest      DelRequest,
                        delResponse     DelResponse,
                        modDNRequest    ModifyDNRequest,
                        modDNResponse   ModifyDNResponse,
                        compareRequest  CompareRequest,
                        compareResponse CompareResponse,
                        abandonRequest  AbandonRequest,
                        extendedReq     ExtendedRequest,
                        extendedResp    ExtendedResponse,
                        ... },
                 controls       [0] Controls OPTIONAL }

        MessageID ::= INTEGER (0 .. maxInt)

        maxInt INTEGER ::= 2147483647 -- (2^^31 - 1) --

        LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded,
                                    -- [ISO10646] characters

        LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to numericoid [Models]

        LDAPDN ::= LDAPString

        RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString

        AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString
                                 -- Constrained to attributedescription
                                 -- [Models]

        AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 42 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

                AttributeDescription

        AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING

        AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
                attributeDesc   AttributeDescription,
                assertionValue  AssertionValue }

        AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING

        Attribute ::= SEQUENCE {
                type    AttributeDescription,
                vals    SET OF AttributeValue }

        MatchingRuleId ::= LDAPString

        LDAPResult ::= SEQUENCE {
                resultCode         ENUMERATED {
                             success                      (0),
                             operationsError              (1),
                             protocolError                (2),
                             timeLimitExceeded            (3),
                             sizeLimitExceeded            (4),
                             compareFalse                 (5),
                             compareTrue                  (6),
                             authMethodNotSupported       (7),
                             strongAuthRequired           (8),
                                        -- 9 reserved --
                             referral                     (10),
                             adminLimitExceeded           (11),
                             unavailableCriticalExtension (12),
                             confidentialityRequired      (13),
                             saslBindInProgress           (14),
                             noSuchAttribute              (16),
                             undefinedAttributeType       (17),
                             inappropriateMatching        (18),
                             constraintViolation          (19),
                             attributeOrValueExists       (20),
                             invalidAttributeSyntax       (21),
                                        -- 22-31 unused --
                             noSuchObject                 (32),
                             aliasProblem                 (33),
                             invalidDNSyntax              (34),
                             -- 35 reserved for undefined isLeaf --
                             aliasDereferencingProblem    (36),
                                        -- 37-47 unused --
                             inappropriateAuthentication  (48),
                             invalidCredentials           (49),
                             insufficientAccessRights     (50),
                             busy                         (51),
                             unavailable                  (52),
                             unwillingToPerform           (53),
                             loopDetect                   (54),
                                        -- 55-63 unused --

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 43 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

                             namingViolation              (64),
                             objectClassViolation         (65),
                             notAllowedOnNonLeaf          (66),
                             notAllowedOnRDN              (67),
                             entryAlreadyExists           (68),
                             objectClassModsProhibited    (69),
                                        -- 70 reserved for CLDAP --
                             affectsMultipleDSAs          (71),
                                        -- 72-79 unused --
                             other                        (80),
                             ... },
                             -- 81-90 reserved for APIs --
                matchedDN          LDAPDN,
                diagnosticMessage  LDAPString,
                referral           [3] Referral OPTIONAL }

        Referral ::= SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL

        LDAPURL ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in
                               -- URLs

        Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF Control

        Control ::= SEQUENCE {
                controlType             LDAPOID,
                criticality             BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
                controlValue            OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

        BindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 0] SEQUENCE {
                version                 INTEGER (1 .. 127),
                name                    LDAPDN,
                authentication          AuthenticationChoice }

        AuthenticationChoice ::= CHOICE {
                simple                  [0] OCTET STRING,
                                         -- 1 and 2 reserved
                sasl                    [3] SaslCredentials,
                ... }

        SaslCredentials ::= SEQUENCE {
                mechanism               LDAPString,
                credentials             OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

        BindResponse ::= [APPLICATION 1] SEQUENCE {
             COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
             serverSaslCreds    [7] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

        UnbindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 2] NULL

        SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE {
                baseObject      LDAPDN,
                scope           ENUMERATED {
                        baseObject              (0),
                        singleLevel             (1),

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 44 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

                        wholeSubtree            (2) },
                derefAliases    ENUMERATED {
                        neverDerefAliases       (0),
                        derefInSearching        (1),
                        derefFindingBaseObj     (2),
                        derefAlways             (3) },
                sizeLimit       INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
                timeLimit       INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
                typesOnly       BOOLEAN,
                filter          Filter,
                attributes      AttributeDescriptionList }

        Filter ::= CHOICE {
                and             [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter,
                or              [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter,
                not             [2] Filter,
                equalityMatch   [3] AttributeValueAssertion,
                substrings      [4] SubstringFilter,
                greaterOrEqual  [5] AttributeValueAssertion,
                lessOrEqual     [6] AttributeValueAssertion,
                present         [7] AttributeDescription,
                approxMatch     [8] AttributeValueAssertion,
                extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion }

        SubstringFilter ::= SEQUENCE {
                type            AttributeDescription,
                -- at least one must be present,
                -- initial and final can occur at most once
                substrings      SEQUENCE OF CHOICE {
                        initial [0] AssertionValue,
                        any     [1] AssertionValue,
                        final   [2] AssertionValue } }

        MatchingRuleAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
                matchingRule    [1] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL,
                type            [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,
                matchValue      [3] AssertionValue,
                dnAttributes    [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }

        SearchResultEntry ::= [APPLICATION 4] SEQUENCE {
                objectName      LDAPDN,
                attributes      PartialAttributeList }

        PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
                type    AttributeDescription,
                vals    SET OF AttributeValue }

        SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL

        SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult

        ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE {
                object          LDAPDN,
                modification    SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 45 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

                        operation       ENUMERATED {
                                                add     (0),
                                                delete  (1),
                                                replace (2) },
                        modification    AttributeTypeAndValues } }

        AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE {
                type    AttributeDescription,
                vals    SET OF AttributeValue }

        ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult

        AddRequest ::= [APPLICATION 8] SEQUENCE {
                entry           LDAPDN,
                attributes      AttributeList }

        AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
                type    AttributeDescription,
                vals    SET OF AttributeValue }

        AddResponse ::= [APPLICATION 9] LDAPResult

        DelRequest ::= [APPLICATION 10] LDAPDN

        DelResponse ::= [APPLICATION 11] LDAPResult

        ModifyDNRequest ::= [APPLICATION 12] SEQUENCE {
                entry           LDAPDN,
                newrdn          RelativeLDAPDN,
                deleteoldrdn    BOOLEAN,
                newSuperior     [0] LDAPDN OPTIONAL }

        ModifyDNResponse ::= [APPLICATION 13] LDAPResult

        CompareRequest ::= [APPLICATION 14] SEQUENCE {
                entry           LDAPDN,
                ava             AttributeValueAssertion }

        CompareResponse ::= [APPLICATION 15] LDAPResult

        AbandonRequest ::= [APPLICATION 16] MessageID

        ExtendedRequest ::= [APPLICATION 23] SEQUENCE {
                requestName      [0] LDAPOID,
                requestValue     [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

        ExtendedResponse ::= [APPLICATION 24] SEQUENCE {
                COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
                responseName     [10] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
                response         [11] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

        END



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 46 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

Appendix C - Change History
   <Note to RFC editor: This section is to be removed prior to RFC
   publication>

C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:

C.1.1 Editorial

   - Bibliography References: Changed all bibliography references to
     use a long name form for readability.
   - Changed occurrences of "unsupportedCriticalExtension"
     "unavailableCriticalExtension"
   - Fixed a small number of misspellings (mostly dropped letters).

C.1.2 Section 1

   - Removed IESG note.

C.1.3 Section 9

   - Added references to RFCs 1823, 2234, 2829 and 2830.


C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:

C.2.1 Section 4.1.6

   - In the first paragraph, clarified what the contents of an
     AttributeValue are. There was confusion regarding whether or not
     an AttributeValue that is BER encoded (due to the "binary" option)
     is to be wrapped in an extra OCTET STRING.
   - To the first paragraph, added wording that doesn't restrict other
     transfer encoding specifiers from being used. The previous wording
     only allowed for the string encoding and the ;binary encoding.
   - To the first paragraph, added a statement restricting multiple
     options that specify transfer encoding from being present. This
     was never specified in the previous version and was seen as a
     potential interoperability problem.
   - Added a third paragraph stating that the ;binary option is
     currently the only option defined that specifies the transfer
     encoding. This is for completeness.

C.2.2 Section 4.1.7

   - Generalized the second paragraph to read "If an option specifying
     the transfer encoding is present in attributeDesc, the
     AssertionValue is encoded as specified by the option...".
     Previously, only the ;binary option was mentioned.

C.2.3 Sections 4.2, 4.9, 4.10

   - Added alias dereferencing specifications. In the case of modDN,
     followed precedent set on other update operations (... alias is
     not dereferenced...) In the case of bind and compare stated that

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 47 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

     servers SHOULD NOT dereference aliases. Specifications were added
     because they were missing from the previous version and caused
     interoperability problems. Concessions were made for bind and
     compare (neither should have ever allowed alias dereferencing) by
     using SHOULD NOT language, due to the behavior of some existing
     implementations.

C.2.4 Sections 4.5 and Appendix A

   - Changed SubstringFilter.substrings.initial, any, and all from
     LDAPString to AssertionValue. This was causing an incompatibility
     with X.500 and confusion among other TS RFCs.


C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:

C.3.1 Section 3.4

   - Reworded text surrounding subschemaSubentry to reflect that it is
     a single-valued attribute that holds the schema for the root DSE.
     Also noted that if the server masters entries that use differing
     schema, each entry's subschemaSubentry attribute must be
     interrogated. This may change as further fine-tuning is done to
     the data model.

C.3.2 Section 4.1.12

   - Specified that the criticality field is only used for requests and
     not for unbind or abandon. Noted that it is ignored for all other
     operations.

C.3.3 Section 4.2

   - Noted that Server behavior is undefined when the name is a null
     value, simple authentication is used, and a password is specified.

C.3.4 Section 4.2.(various)

   - Changed "unauthenticated" to "anonymous" and "DN" and "LDAPDN" to
     "name"

C.3.5 Section 4.2.2

   - Changed "there is no authentication or encryption being performed
     by a lower layer" to "the underlying transport service cannot
     guarantee confidentiality"

C.3.6 Section 4.5.2

   - Removed all mention of ExtendedResponse due to lack of
     implementation.

C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 48 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

C.4.1 Section 4

   - Removed "typically" from "and is typically transferred" in the
     first paragraph. We know of no (and can conceive of no) case where
     this isn't true.
   - Added "Section 5.1 specifies how the LDAP protocol is encoded." To
     the first paragraph. Added this cross reference for readability.
   - Changed "version 3 " to "version 3 or later" in the second
     paragraph. This was added to clarify the original intent.
   - Changed "protocol version" to "protocol versions" in the third
     paragraph. This attribute is multi-valued with the intent of
     holding all supported versions, not just one.

C.4.2 Section 4.1.8

   - Changed "when transferred in protocol" to "when transferred from
     the server to the client" in the first paragraph. This is to
     clarify that this behavior only happens when attributes are being
     sent from the server.

C.4.3 Section 4.1.10

   - Changed "servers will return responses containing fields of type
     LDAPResult" to "servers will return responses of LDAPResult or
     responses containing the components of LDAPResponse". This
     statement was incorrect and at odds with the ASN.1. The fix here
     reflects the original intent.
   - Dropped '--new' from result codes ASN.1. This simplification in
     comments just reduces unneeded verbiage.

C.4.4 Section 4.1.11

   - Changed "It contains a reference to another server (or set of
     servers)" to "It contains one or more references to one or more
     servers or services" in the first paragraph. This reflects the
     original intent and clarifies that the URL may point to non-LDAP
     services.

C.4.5 Section 4.1.12

   - Changed "The server MUST be prepared" to "Implementations MUST be
     prepared" in the eighth paragraph to reflect that both client and
     server implementations must be able to handle this (as both parse
     controls).

C.4.6 Section 4.4

   - Changed "One unsolicited notification is defined" to "One
     unsolicited notification (Notice of Disconnection) is defined" in
     the third paragraph. For clarity and readability.

C.4.7 Section 4.5.1



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 49 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   - Changed "checking for the existence of the objectClass attribute"
     to "checking for the presence of the objectClass attribute" in the
     last paragraph. This was done as a measure of consistency (we use
     the terms present and presence rather than exists and existence in
     search filters).

C.4.8 Section 4.5.3

   - Changed "outstanding search operations to different servers," to
     "outstanding search operations" in the fifth paragraph as they may
     be to the same server. This is a point of clarification.

C.4.9 Section 4.6

   - Changed "clients MUST NOT attempt to delete" to "clients MUST NOT
     attempt to add or delete" in the second to last paragraph.
   - Change "using the "delete" form" to "using the "add" or "delete"
     form" in the second to last paragraph.

C.4.10 Section 4.7

   - Changed "Clients MUST NOT supply the createTimestamp or
     creatorsName attributes, since these will be generated
     automatically by the server." to "Clients MUST NOT supply NO-USER-
     MODIFICATION attributes such as createTimestamp or creatorsName
     attributes, since these are provided by the server." in the
     definition of the attributes field. This tightens the language to
     reflect the original intent and to not leave a hole in which one
     could interpret the two attributes mentioned as the only non-
     writable attributes.

C.4.11 Section 4.11

   - Changed "has been" to "will be" in the fourth paragraph. This
     clarifies that the server will (not has) abandon the operation.


C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:

C.5.1 Section 3.2.1

   - Changed "An attribute is a type with one or more associated
     values. The attribute type is identified by a short descriptive
     name and an OID (object identifier). The attribute type governs
     whether there can be more than one value of an attribute of that
     type in an entry, the syntax to which the values must conform, the
     kinds of matching which can be performed on values of that
     attribute, and other functions." to " An attribute is a
     description (a type and zero or more options) with one or more
     associated values. The attribute type governs whether the
     attribute can have multiple values, the syntax and matching rules
     used to construct and compare values of that attribute, and other
     functions. Options indicate modes of transfer and other


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 50 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

     functions.". This points out that an attribute consists of both
     the type and options.

C.5.2 Section 4

   -  Changed "Section 5.1 specifies the encoding rules for the LDAP
     protocol" to "Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded
     and transferred."

C.5.3 Section 4.1.2

   - Added ABNF for the textual representation of LDAPOID. Previously,
     there was no formal BNF for this construct.

C.5.4 Section 4.1.4

   - Changed "This identifier may be written as decimal digits with
     components separated by periods, e.g. "2.5.4.10"" to "may be
     written as defined by ldapOID in section 4.1.2" in the second
     paragraph. This was done because we now have a formal BNF
     definition of an oid.

C.5.5 Section 4.1.5

   - Changed the BNF for AttributeDescription to ABNF. This was done
     for readability and consistency (no functional changes involved).
   - Changed "Options present in an AttributeDescription are never
     mutually exclusive." to "Options MAY be mutually exclusive. An
     AttributeDescription with mutually exclusive options is treated as
     an undefined attribute type." for clarity. It is generally
     understood that this is the original intent, but the wording could
     be easily misinterpreted.
   - Changed "Any option could be associated with any AttributeType,
     although not all combinations may be supported by a server." to
     "Though any option or set of options could be associated with any
     AttributeType, the server support for certain combinations may be
     restricted by attribute type, syntaxes, or other factors.". This
     is to clarify the meaning of 'combination' (it applies both to
     combination of attribute type and options, and combination of
     options). It also gives examples of *why* they might be
     unsupported.

C.5.6 Section 4.1.11

   - Changed the wording regarding 'equally capable' referrals to "If
     multiple URLs are present, the client assumes that any URL may be
     used to progress the operation.". The previous language implied
     that the server MUST enforce rules that it was practically
     incapable of. The new language highlights the original intent--
     that is, that any of the referrals may be used to progress the
     operation, there is no inherent 'weighting' mechanism.

C.5.7 Section 4.5.1 and Appendix A


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 51 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   - Added the comment "-- initial and final can occur at most once",
     to clarify this restriction.

C.5.8 Section 5.1

   - Changed heading from "Mapping Onto BER-based Transport Services"
     to "Protocol Encoding".

C.5.9 Section 5.2.1

   - Changed "The LDAPMessage PDUs" to "The encoded LDAPMessage PDUs"
     to point out that the PDUs are encoded before being streamed to
     TCP.

C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:

C.6.1 Section 4.5.1 and Appendix A

   - Changed the ASN.1 for the and and or choices of Filter to have a
     lower range of 1. This was an omission in the original ASN.1

C.6.2 Various

   - Fixed various typo's

C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:

C.7.1 Section 3.2.1

   - Added "(as defined in Section 12.4.1 of [X.501])" to the fifth
     paragraph when talking about "operational attributes". This is
     because the term "operational attributes" is never defined.
     Alternately, we could drag a definition into the spec, for now,
     I'm just pointing to the reference in X.501.

C.7.2 Section 4.1.5

   - Changed "And is also case insensitive" to "The entire
     AttributeDescription is case insensitive". This is to clarify
     whether we're talking about the entire attribute description, or
     just the options.

   - Expounded on the definition of attribute description options. This
     doc now specifies a difference between transfer and tagging
     options and describes the semantics of each, and how and when
     subtyping rules apply. Now allow options to be transmitted in any
     order but disallow any ordering semantics to be implied. These
     changes are the result of ongoing input from an engineering team
     designed to deal with ambiguity issues surrounding attribute
     options.

C.7.3 Sections 4.1.5.1 and 4.1.6



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 52 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   - Refer to non "binary" transfer encodings as "native encoding"
     rather than "string" encoding to clarify and avoid confusion.

C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:

C.8.1 Title

   - Changed to "LDAP: The Protocol" to be consisted with other working
     group documents

C.8.2 Abstract

   - Moved above TOC to conform to new guidelines

   - Reworded to make consistent with other WG documents.

   - Moved 2119 conventions to "Conventions" section

C.8.3 Introduction

   - Created to conform to new guidelines

C.8.4 Models

   - Removed section. There is only one model in this document
     (Protocol Model)

C.8.5 Protocol Model

   - Removed antiquated paragraph: "In keeping with the goal of easing
     the costs associated with use of the directory, it is an objective
     of this protocol to minimize the complexity of clients so as to
     facilitate widespread deployment of applications capable of using
     the directory."

   - Removed antiquated paragraph concerning LDAP v1 and v2 and
     referrals.

C.8.6 Data Model

   - Removed Section 3.2 and subsections. These have been moved to
     [Models]

C.8.7 Relationship to X.500

   - Removed section. It has been moved to [Roadmap]

C.8.8 Server Specific Data Requirements

   - Removed section. It has been moved to [Models]

C.8.9 Elements of Protocol



Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 53 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   - Added "Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded and
     transferred." to the end of the first paragraph for reference.

   - Reworded notes about extensibility, and now talk about implied
     extensibility and the use of ellipses in the ASN.1

   - Removed references to LDAPv2 in third and fourth paragraphs.

C.8.10 Message ID

   - Reworded second paragraph to "The message ID of a request MUST
     have a non-zero value different from the values of any other
     requests outstanding in the LDAP session of which this message is
     a part. The zero value is reserved for the unsolicited
     notification message." (Added notes about non-zero and the zero
     value).

C.8.11 String Types

   - Removed ABNF for LDAPOID and added "Although an LDAPOID is encoded
     as an OCTET STRING, values are limited to the definition of
     numericoid given in Section 1.3 of [Models]."

C.8.12 Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name

   - Removed ABNF and referred to [Models] and [LDAPDN] where this is
     defined.

C.8.13 Attribute Type

   - Removed sections. It's now in the [Models] doc.

C.8.14 Attribute Description

   - Removed ABNF and aligned section with [Models]

   - Moved AttributeDescriptionList here.

C.8.15 Transfer Options

   - Added section and consumed much of old options language (while
     aligning with [Models]

C.8.16 Binary Transfer Option

   - Clarified intent regarding exactly what is to be BER encoded.

   - Clarified that clients must not expect ;binary when not asking for
     it (;binary, as opposed to ber encoded data).


C.8.17 Attribute

   - Use the term "attribute description" in lieu of "type"

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 54 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   - Clarified the fact that clients cannot rely on any apparent
     ordering of attribute values.

C.8.18 LDAPResult

   - To resultCode, added ellipses "..." to the enumeration to indicate
     extensibility. and added a note, pointing to [LDAPIANA]

   - Removed error groupings ad refer to Appendix A.

C.8.19 Bind Operation

   - Added "Prior to the BindRequest, the implied identity is
     anonymous. Refer to [AuthMeth] for the authentication-related
     semantics of this operation." to the first paragraph.

   - Added ellipses "..." to AuthenticationChoice and added a note
     "This type is extensible as defined in Section 3.6 of [LDAPIANA].
     Servers that do not support a choice supplied by a client will
     return authMethodNotSupported in the result code of the
     BindResponse."

   - Simplified text regarding how the server handles unknown versions.
     Removed references to LDAPv2

C.8.20 Sequencing of the Bind Request

   - Aligned with [AuthMeth] In particular, paragraphs 4 and 6 were
     removed, while a portion of 4 was retained (see C.8.9)

C.8.21 Authentication and other Security Service

   - Section was removed. Now in [AuthMeth]

C.8.22 Continuation References in the Search Result

   - Added "If the originating search scope was singleLevel, the scope
     part of the URL will be baseObject."

C.8.23 Security Considerations

   - Removed reference to LDAPv2

C.8.24 Result Codes

   - Added as normative appendix A

C.8.25 ASN.1

   - Added EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED

   - Added a number of comments holding referenced to [Models] and
     [ISO10646].

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 55 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3


   - Removed AttributeType. It is not used.


C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:

   - Removed all mention of transfer encodings and the binary attribute
     option

   - Further alignment with [Models].

   - Added extensibility ellipsis to protocol op choice

   - In 4.1.1, clarified when connections may be dropped due to
     malformed PDUs

   - Specified which matching rules and syntaxes are used for various
     filter items

C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt:

C.10.1 Section 4.1.1.1:

   - Clarified when it is and isn't appropriate to return an already
     used message id.

C.10.2 Section 4.1.11:

   - Clarified that a control only applies to the message it's attached
     to.

   - Explained that the criticality field is only applicable to certain
     request messages.

   - Added language regarding the combination of controls.

C.10.3 Section 4.11:

   - Explained that Abandon and Unbind cannot be abandoned, and
     illustrated how to determine whether an operation has been
     abandoned.


C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt:

   - Fixed formatting


C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt:

C.12.1 Section 4.1.4:

   - Removed second paragraph as this language exists in MODELS


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 56 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

C.12.2 Section 4.2.1:

   - Replaced fourth paragraph. It was accidentally removed in an
     earlier edit.

C.12.2 Section 4.13:

   - Added section describing the StartTLS operation (moved from
     authmeth)

C.13 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt:

C.13.1 Section 4.1.9

   - Changed "errorMessage" to "diagnosticMessage". Simply to indicate
     that the field may be non-empty even if a non-error resultCode is
     present.

C.13.2 Section 4.2:

   - Reconciled language in "name" definition with [AuthMeth]

C.13.3 Section 4.2.1

   - Renamed to "Processing of the Bind Request", and moved some text
     from 4.2 into this section.

   - Rearranged paragraphs to flow better.

   - Specified that (as well as failed) an abandoned bind operation
     will leave the connection in an anonymous state.

C.13.4 Section 4.5.3

   - Generalized the second paragraph which cited indexing and
     searchreferralreferences.

C.14 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-12.txt:

   - Reworked bind errors.
   - General clarifications and edits

C.15 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-13.txt

C.15.1 Section 2 & various
   - Added definitions for LDAP connection, TLS connection, and LDAP
     association, and updated appropriate fields to use proper terms.

C.15.2 Section 4.2
   - Added text to authentication, specifying the way in which textual
     strings used as passwords are to be prepared.


C.15.3 Section 4.5.1

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 57 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   - Clarified derefInSearching. Specifically how it works in terms of
     subtree and one level searches

C.15.4 Section 4.5.2

   - Changed MUST to SHOULD for returning textual attribute name, The
     MUST is unreasonable.  There are likely cases (such as when the
     server knows multiple attributes in separate entries of a search
     result set share the same short name) where returning a numericoid
     is better than returning a short name.  That is, the MUST may
     actually disallow servers from preventing misinterpretation of
     short names.  This is not only an interop issue, but likely a
     security consideration.

C.15.4 Section 4.9
   - Made modify consistent with add in regards to teh need of parent
     entries already existing.

C.15.6 Section 4.13.2.2
   - Removed wording indicating that referrals can be returned from
     StartTLS

Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items

D.0 General
   - Integrate notational consistency agreements WG will discuss
     notation consistency. Once agreement happens, reconcile draft.

   - Reconcile problems with [Models]. Section 3.2 was wholly removed.
     There were some protocol semantics in that section that need to be
     brought back. Specifically, there was the notion of the server
     implicitly adding objectclass superclasses when a value is added.

D.1 Make result code usage consistent.

   - While there is a result code appendix, ensure it speaks of result
     codes in a general sense, and only highlight specific result codes
     in  the context of an operation when that operation ties more
     specific meanings to that result code.


D.2 Verify references.

   - Many referenced documents have changed. Ensure references and
     section numbers are correct.

D.3 Usage of Naming Context

   - Make sure occurrences of "namingcontext" and "naming context" are
     consistent with [Models]. Use in section 6.2 should be reworked.
     It's layers of indirection that matter, not number of contexts.
     (That is, referrals can be returned for a number of reasons (cross
     reference, superior, subordinate, busy, not master, etc.)


Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 58 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

     Other uses are fine.

D.4 Review 2119 usage


D.5 Reconcile with I-D Nits


D.23 Section 4.5.3

   - A server MUST NOT return any SearchResultReference if it has not
     located the baseObject and thus has not searched any entries; in
     this case it would return a SearchResultDone containing a referral
     resultCode.

   - Add "Similarly, a server MUST NOT return a SearchResultReference
     when the scope of the search is baseObject. If a client receives
     such a SearchResultReference it MUST interpret is as a protocol
     error and MUST NOT follow it." to the first paragraph.
     The technical specification doesn't have to describe how a
     protocol peer should react when its partner violates an absolute.

     OR return noSuchObject.

   - Add "If the scope part of the LDAP URL is present, the client MUST
     use the new scope in its next request to progress the search. If
     the scope part is absent the client MUST use subtree scope to
     complete subtree searches and base scope to complete one level
     searches." to the third paragraph.

D.25 Section 4.6

   - Resolve the meaning of "and is ignored if the attribute does not
     exist". See "modify: "non-existent attribute"" on the list. Not
     sure if there's really an issue here. Will look at archive

D.27 Section 4.10

   - Specify what happens when the attr is missing vs. attr isn't in
     schema. Also what happens if there's no equality matching rule.
     noSuchAttribute, undefinedAttributeType, inappropriateMatching

D.30 Section 5.1

   - Add "control and extended operation values" to last paragraph. See
     "LBER (BER Restrictions)" on list.

D.32 Section 6.1

   - Add "that are used by those attributes" to the first paragraph.
   - Add "Servers which support update operations MUST, and other
     servers SHOULD, support strong authentication mechanisms described
     in [RFC2829]." as a second paragraph. Likely should just say

Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 59 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

     Requirements of authentication methods, SASL mechanisms, and TLS
     are described in [AUTHMETH]." (also apply to next two below)
   - Add "Servers which provide access to sensitive information MUST,
     and other servers SHOULD support privacy protections such as those
     described in [RFC2829] and [RFC2830]." as a third paragraph.

D.33 Section 7

   - Add "Servers which support update operations MUST, and other
     servers SHOULD, support strong authentication mechanisms described
     in [RFC2829]." as a fourth paragraph.
   - Add "In order to automatically follow referrals, clients may need
     to hold authentication secrets. This poses significant privacy and
     security concerns and SHOULD be avoided." as a sixth paragraph.
     There are concerns with "automatic" chasing regardless of which,
     if any, authentication method/mechanism is used.

   - Add notes regarding DoS attack found by CERT advisories.

D.34 Appendix C

   - C.9. Explain why we removed ;binary, and what clients can do to
     get around potential problems (likely refer to an I-D)
































Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 60 
              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3

   Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). 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 assigns.

   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.




























Sermersheim       Internet-Draft - Expires Jan 2004              Page 61


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/