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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                   S. Legg
draft-legg-ldap-admin-03.txt                                     eB2Bcom
Intended Category: Standards Track                     September 3, 2007


             Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
                     Directory Administrative Model

                  Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   Status of This Memo

   By submitting this Internet-draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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/1id-abstracts.html

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

   Comments should be sent to the author.

   This Internet-Draft expires on 3 March 2008.


Abstract

   This document adapts the X.500 directory administrative model for use
   by the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).  The
   administrative model partitions the Directory Information Tree (DIT)
   for various aspects of directory data administration, e.g.,
   subschema, access control, and collective attributes.  The generic
   framework that applies to every aspect of administration is described
   in this document.  The definitions that apply for a specific aspect
   of administration, e.g., access control administration, are described



Legg                      Expires 3 March 2008                  [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Directory Administrative Model    September 3, 2007


   in other documents.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Conventions .....................................................2
   3. Administrative Areas ............................................2
   4. Autonomous Administrative Areas .................................3
   5. Specific Administrative Areas ...................................3
   6. Inner Administrative Areas ......................................4
   7. Administrative Entries ..........................................4
   8. Security Considerations .........................................5
   9. Acknowledgements ................................................5
   10. References .....................................................5
      10.1. Normative References ......................................5
      10.2. Informative References ....................................5

1.  Introduction

   This document adapts the X.500 directory administrative model [X.501]
   for use by the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [LDAP].
   The administrative model partitions the Directory Information Tree
   (DIT) for various aspects of directory data administration, e.g.,
   subschema, access control, and collective attributes.  This document
   provides the definitions for the generic parts of the administrative
   model that apply to every aspect of directory data administration.

   Sections 3 to 7, in conjunction with [SUBENTRY], describe the means
   by which administrative authority is aportioned and exercised in the
   DIT.

   Aspects of administration that conform to the administrative model
   described in this document, e.g., access control administration [ACA]
   and collective attribute administration [COLLECT], are detailed
   elsewhere.

   This document is derived from, and duplicates substantial portions
   of, Sections 4 and 8 of X.501 [X.501].

2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and  "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [BCP14].

3.  Administrative Areas



Legg                      Expires 3 March 2008                  [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Directory Administrative Model    September 3, 2007


   An administrative area is a subtree of the DIT considered from the
   perspective of administration.  The root entry of the subtree is an
   administrative point.  An administrative point is represented by an
   entry holding an administrativeRole attribute [SUBENTRY].  The values
   of this attribute identify the kind of administrative point.

4.  Autonomous Administrative Areas

   The DIT may be partitioned into one or more non-overlapping subtrees
   termed autonomous administrative areas.  It is expected that the
   entries in an autonomous administrative area are all administered by
   the same administrative authority.

   An administrative authority may be responsible for several autonomous
   administrative areas in separated parts of the DIT but it SHOULD NOT
   arbitrarily partition the collection of entries under its control
   into autonomous administrative areas (thus creating adjacent
   autonomous areas administered by the same authority).

   The root entry of an autonomous administrative area's subtree is
   called an autonomous administrative point.  An autonomous
   administrative area extends from its autonomous administrative point
   downwards until another autonomous administrative point is
   encountered, at which point another autonomous administrative area
   begins.

5.  Specific Administrative Areas

   Entries in an administrative area may be considered in terms of a
   specific administrative function.  When viewed in this context, an
   administrative area is termed a specific administrative area.

   Examples of specific administrative areas are subschema specific
   administrative areas, access control specific areas, and collective
   attribute specific areas.

   An autonomous administrative area may be considered as implicitly
   defining a single specific administrative area for each specific
   aspect of administration.  In this case, there is a precise
   correspondence between each such specific administrative area and the
   autonomous administrative area.

   Alternatively, for each specific aspect of administration, the
   autonomous administrative area may be partitioned into
   non-overlapping specific administrative areas.

   If so partitioned for a particular aspect of administration, each
   entry of the autonomous administrative area is contained in one and



Legg                      Expires 3 March 2008                  [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Directory Administrative Model    September 3, 2007


   only one specific administrative area for that aspect, i.e., specific
   administrative areas do not overlap.

   The root entry of a specific administrative area's subtree is called
   a specific administrative point.  A specific administrative area
   extends from its specific administrative point downwards until
   another specific administrative point of the same administrative
   aspect is encountered, at which point another specific administrative
   area begins.  Specific administrative areas are always bounded by the
   autonomous administrative area they partition.

   Where an autonomous administrative area is not partitioned for a
   specific aspect of administration, the specific administrative area
   for that aspect coincides with the autonomous administrative area.
   In this case, the autonomous administrative point is also the
   specific administrative point for this aspect of administration.  A
   particular administrative point may be the root of an autonomous
   administrative area and may be the root of one or more specific
   administrative areas for different aspects of administration.

   It is not necessary for an administrative point to represent each
   specific aspect of administrative authority.  For example, there
   might be an administrative point, subordinate to the root of the
   autonomous administrative area, that is used for access control
   purposes only.

6.  Inner Administrative Areas

   For some aspects of administration, e.g., access control or
   collective attributes, inner administrative areas may be defined
   within the specific administrative areas, to allow a limited form of
   delegation, or for administrative or operational convenience.

   An inner administrative area may be nested within another inner
   administrative area.  The rules for nested inner areas are defined as
   part of the definition of the specific administrative aspect for
   which they are allowed.

   The root entry of an inner administrative area's subtree is called an
   inner administrative point.  An inner administrative area (within a
   specific administrative area) extends from its inner administrative
   point downwards until a specific administrative point of the same
   administrative aspect is encountered.  An inner administrative area
   is bounded by the specific administrative area within which it is
   defined.

7.  Administrative Entries




Legg                      Expires 3 March 2008                  [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Directory Administrative Model    September 3, 2007


   An entry located at an administrative point is an administrative
   entry.  Administrative entries MAY have subentries [SUBENTRY] as
   immediate subordinates.  The administrative entry and its associated
   subentries are used to control the entries encompassed by the
   associated administrative area.  Where inner administrative areas are
   used, the scopes of these areas may overlap.  Therefore, for each
   specific aspect of administrative authority, a definition is required
   of the method of combination of administrative information when it is
   possible for entries to be included in more than one subtree or
   subtree refinement associated with an inner area defined for that
   aspect.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document defines a generic framework for employing policy of
   various kinds, e.g., access controls, to entries in the DIT.  Such
   policy can only be correctly enforced at a directory server holding a
   replica of a portion of the DIT if the administrative entries for
   administrative areas that overlap the portion of the DIT being
   replicated, and the subentries of those administrative entries
   relevant to any aspect of policy that is required to be enforced at
   the replica, are included in the replicated information.

   Administrative entries and subentries SHOULD be protected from
   unauthorized examination or changes by appropriate access controls.

9.  Acknowledgements

   This document is derived from, and duplicates substantial portions
   of, Sections 4 and 8 of X.501 [X.501].

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [SUBENTRY] Zeilenga, K. and S. Legg, "Subentries in the Lightweight
              Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)", RFC 3672, December
              2003.

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

10.2.  Informative References




Legg                      Expires 3 March 2008                  [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Directory Administrative Model    September 3, 2007


   [COLLECT]  Zeilenga, K., "Collective Attributes in the Lightweight
              Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)", RFC 3671, December
              2003.

   [ACA]      Legg, S., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
              Access Control Administration",
              draft-legg-ldap-acm-admin-xx.txt, a work in progress, June
              2004.

   [X.501]    ITU-T Recommendation X.501 (08/05) | ISO/IEC 9594-2:2005,
              Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
              The Directory: Models.

IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

Author's Address

   Dr. Steven Legg
   eB2Bcom
   Suite 1, 85-87 Charles Street
   Kew, Victoria 3101
   AUSTRALIA

   Phone: +61 3 9851 8630
     Fax: +61 3 9851 8601
   EMail: steven.legg@eb2bcom.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

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

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

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any



Legg                      Expires 3 March 2008                  [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Directory Administrative Model    September 3, 2007


   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

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

Note to the RFC Editor: the remainder of this document is to be removed
before final publication.

Changes in Draft 00

   This document reproduces Section 4 from
   draft-legg-ldap-acm-admin-00.txt as a standalone document.  All
   changes made are purely editorial.  No technical changes have been
   introduced.

Changes in Draft 01

   RFC 3377 replaces RFC 2251 as the reference for LDAP.

Changes in Draft 02

   The document has been reformatted in line with current practice.

Changes in Draft 03

   RFC 4510 replaces RFC 3377 as the reference for LDAP.









Legg                      Expires 3 March 2008                  [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/