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

Versions: 00

   Internet Draft                                               T. Hahn
   Document: draft-hahn-schemapart-00.txt                           IBM
   Expires: January 2002                                      July 2001

       Approach for identifying different schemas in effect across a
                           Directory Name-space

1.  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-

   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


   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


2.  Abstract

   IETF RFC 2251 [RFC2251] provides a mechanism for indicating, given
   any particular entry in the directory tree, what entry in the
   directory tree holds the directory schema information for that
   particular entry.  RFC 2251 does not, however, provide guidance on
   how different directory servers, each of which might have their own
   active directory schema, should ôpublicizeö this directory schema
   such that the different active schemas are distinct from one another
   when viewing the entire directory name-space.  This document
   describes a way to name sub-schema sub-entry entries such that
   different active schemas can be distinguished from one another
   across the entire directory name-space.

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 1]

                     Identifying multiple schemas

3.  Table of Contents

   1. Status of this Memo............................................1
   2. Abstract.......................................................1
   3. Table of Contents..............................................2
   4. Conventions used in this document..............................3
   5. Review of RFC 2251 and RFC 2252 definition of subschemasubentry3
   6. Contents of subschemasubentry..................................3
   7. Method of naming subschemasubentry entries as distinct from one
   7.1.  Potential problems with ambiguous subschemasubentry values..4
   7.2.  Subschema sub-entry is really an administrative element.....5
   7.3.  Subschema sub-entry entries as ldapSubEntry entries.........6
   8. Summary........................................................8
   9. Security Considerations........................................8
   10.  References...................................................9
   11.  Copyright Notice.............................................9
   12.  Author's Address.............................................9

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 2]

                     Identifying multiple schemas

4.  Conventions used in this document

   In this document, directory entries will be described using LDAP
   Data Interchange Format (LDIF).  See RFC 2849 [RFC2849] for details
   on LDIF.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [1].

5.  Review of RFC 2251 and RFC 2252 definition of subschemasubentry

   In RFC 2251 and RFC 2252, an operational attribute was defined
   called subschemasubentry.  This attribute can be requested from any
   entry in the directory tree.  When requested, the attributeÆs value
   will be a distinguished name which ôpoints toö another entry in the
   name-space.  The entry ôpointed toö contains the definition of the
   directory schema which controls that entry.

   While this allows the schema that controls an entry to be found
   given any entry in the name-space, it does not give guidance on how
   servers that manage multiple ôactive schemasö or multiple servers
   would make their active schemas appear ôuniqueö from other schemas
   that are active in the name-space.

   Based on implementation experience, the distinguished names that
   have been chosen for the subschemasubentry have ranged from fixed
   names such as ôcn=schemaö to names relative to the namingContexts
   attribute values in the root DSE entry such as ôcn=schema, o=Your
   Company, c=USö.  It is clear that to promote interoperability and
   organization of the directory name-space (within single servers and
   across multiple server environments), more specification of how to
   name the subschema sub-entry entries is required.  If multiple
   servers name their schema ôcn=schemaö and each subschema sub-entry
   is different from one another, applications which access data in
   each of those servers will have difficulty determining which
   ôcn=schemaö entry is in effect for the name-space.  This problem is
   further confounded with the use of LDAP referrals where the LDAP
   server on which a request originates may not be the server on which
   the request is processed.

   This document will provide a means of naming subschema sub-entry
   entries such that each ôactive schemaö has a unique name in the
   directory name-space.

6.  Contents of subschemasubentry

   RFC 2251 provides a description of the attributes which should be
   contained in the subschemasubentry entry.  These attributes are
   ôattributetypesö, ôobjectclassesö, ôldapsyntaxesö, and
   ômatchingrulesö.  Implementation experience has shown that
   implementers have added additional attributes including attributes
   that further define attribute type definitions as well as attributes

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 3]

                     Identifying multiple schemas
   to describe naming formats and structure rules.  The definition of
   the subschema sub-entry entry in RFC 2251 has its roots in the X.500
   directory model and its definition of a sub-entry which defines the
   schema for an area of the directory name-space.

   A few implementations have named the subschema sub-entry entries
   based on the tree of information that is controlled by that schema.
   In these implementations, the subschema sub-entry is also defined as
   an object class that is derived from the X.500 ôsubentryö object
   class.  The ôsubentryö object class has since been modeled in LDAP
   schema as a ôldapSubEntryö object class [LDAPSUBENTRY].

   By using the ôldapSubEntryö construct coupled with the notion that
   different portions of the directory name-space may be controlled by
   different schemas, we can define a mechanism for uniquely naming
   subschema sub-entry entries across single and multiple server

7.  Method of naming subschemasubentry entries as distinct from one

  7.1. Potential problems with ambiguous subschemasubentry values

   RFC 2252 defines the ôsubschemasubentryö attribute value.  It does
   not require all entries in the directory to return the same value
   for this attribute.  Indeed, an implementation could choose to
   define a separate value for every entry in the directory name-space
   it is controlling and still conform to the requirements for the
   subschemasubentry attribute from RFC 2251.

   Most implementations today take a ôsingle serverö view of the
   directory name-space.  With this view, the choice of naming the
   ôsubschemasubentryö entry as ôcn=schemaö does not appear to cause
   any difficulty.  After all, if there is only one server serving the
   directory, there need not be more than one schema.  When multiple
   servers are serving the overall directory name-space (for example,
   when multiple servers are tied together using LDAP referrals
   [LDAPREFERRALS], then different servers might contain different
   active schemas.  At this point, if all servers name their schema as
   ôcn=schemaö, problems can arise as applications access the subschema
   sub-entry.  The same distinguished name refers to different entries,
   depending upon the server that is contacted.  If a server is
   contacted through following a referral, a subsequent request to
   retrieve the subschema sub-entry may not follow the referral,
   causing the wrong subschema sub-entry entry to be returned to the

   As an example, consider two LDAP servers, server A and server B.  If
   server A has namingContexts in the root DSE entry of:

   namingContexts: ou=Marketing, o=Your Company
   namingContexts: ou=Research, o=Your Company

   While server B has namingContexts of:

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 4]

                     Identifying multiple schemas

   namingContexts: ou=Dept 14, ou=Marketing, o=Your Company

   Further, assume that server A holds a referral to server B such that
   applications which request information below ôou=Dept 14,
   ou=Marketing, o=Your Companyö will be re-routed to server B for

   Also assume that both server A and server B use the same
   distinguished name, ôcn=schemaö for the subschemasubentry attribute

   If an application requests the ôsubschemasubentryö attribute from
   ôou=Dept 14, ou=Marketing, o=Your Companyö from server A, referrals
   will be followed (presumably), and the value ôcn=schemaö will be
   returned from server B (unbeknownst to the application).  If the
   application then requests the subschema sub-entry from server A, it
   will get the ôcn=schemaö entry from server A (not from server B).
   If the two subschema sub-entry entries were named uniquely, this
   situation would not occur.

   It is within the bounds of RFC 2251 that server A and server B use
   different distinguished names for the subschema sub-entry.  For
   example, server A could use ôcn=schema, ou=Research, o=Your Companyö
   and server B could use ôcn=schema, ou=Dept 14, ou=Marketing, o=Your
   Companyö.  If this were done, then when the application requested
   the subschemasubentry attribute in the prior example, it would be
   returned a distinguished name that was also in server BÆs ôname-
   spaceö.  If the request for this entry was sent to server A, then
   the LDAP referral which re-routed the first request to server B
   would do so again, re-directing the request for the subshema sub-
   entry to the server on which the schema exists.

   There are two other possibilities as well: multiple servers all use
   the same schema or a single server uses multiple schemas.  In either
   of these cases, if the subschema sub-entry entry is named uniquely
   (relative to other subschema sub-entry entries that might exist in
   the directory name-space) then the ôrightö schema can be retrieved

  7.2. Subschema sub-entry is really an administrative element

   The active schema (or schemas) in a directory server is (are) really
   an administrative element of that server.  This information, similar
   to replication information or namingContext information, is related
   to administering the directory server(s) and the directory name-
   space(s) that those servers are serving.

   As an administrative element, it seems a good fit that the subschema
   sub-entry entry use the object classes and structures that have been
   defined for modeling administrative elements in the directory name-
   space, namely the ldapSubEntry object class defined in
   [LDAPSUBENTRY].  Using ldapSubEntry also provides the notion of a

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 5]

                     Identifying multiple schemas
   ôspan of controlö for the subschema sub-entry entry, something that
   has been missing from RFC 2251.

   There is a slight problem today with defining only the
   subschemasubentry attribute per RFC 2251.  This has to do with
   predicting which sub-schema subentry will be used when an entry is
   added to the directory.  Since the directory entry does not exist
   yet, it has no subschemasubentry attribute û thus, there is no way
   to point to the subschema sub-entry entry that ôwould beö used to
   verify the entryÆs structure during the processing of the add

   Further, when found in the root DSE entry, the single-valued
   subschemasubentry attribute does not refer to the schema across the
   server but rather to the subschema entry that contains the
   definition of the attribute types in the root DSE entry.

   By using the ldapSubEntry construct, applications would get a ôhintö
   regarding what subschema sub-entry ôwould beö in effect when adding
   an entry to the directory as the ldapSubEntry construct defines its
   span of control ôdownwardö in the tree until an overriding
   ldapSubEntry is encountered.  Note that this is only a ôhintö since
   the active schema could change right at the point in the directory
   name-space where the new entry is being added.  This could occur,
   for example, when the entry at the top of a namingContext is being
   added and the namingContext is located on a different server.

  7.3. Subschema sub-entry entries as ldapSubEntry entries

   With the justification in the last two sections, the proposal for
   naming subschema sub-entry entries across the directory name-space
   is to

   1) define the subschema sub-entry entry to be derived from the
   ldapSubEntry object class:

   ( NAME ældapSubSchemaSubEntryÆ
      SUP ldapSubEntry
      DESC æLDAP sub-entry which represents the active schema
            that is in effect across a sub-tree of the directory
            name-space.  The subschema AUXILIARY object class
            is attached to this sub-entry to reflect the schema

   By using the ldapSubSchemaSubEntry object class above, the naming
   attribute for the entry is ôcnö (per the ldapSubEntry object class).
   Further, the entry should exist just below the entry at which the
   subschema sub-entry starts controlling entries in the directory
   name-space.  Subschema entries are named in relation to the portion
   of the overall directory name-space to which they apply.

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 6]

                     Identifying multiple schemas
   2) recommend that directory servers use this construct to define
   their subschema sub entry entries and that the ôsubschemasubentryö
   attribute for an entry should point to the schema that ôcontrolsö
   the entry (per RFC 2251), and that the name of the subschema sub-
   entry entry should be specific to what information it controls (if
   the schema only applies to information in one or a set of servers,
   then the subschema sub-entry should have a name specific to that
   server or set of servers).

   Using the example from the previous section with server A and server
   B, server A would have two subschema sub-entry entries:

   dn: cn=schema, ou=Marketing, o=Your Company
   objectclass: ldapSubEntry
   objectclass: ldapSubSchemaSubEntry
   objectclass: subschema
   attributetypes: . . .
   objectclasses: . . .
   matchingrules: . . .

   dn: cn=schema, ou=Research, o=Your Company
   objectclass: ldapSubEntry
   objectclass: ldapSubSchemaSubEntry
   objectclass: subschema
   attributetypes: . . .
   objectclasses: . . .
   matchingrules: . . .

   There is nothing preventing server A from using the same ôactive
   schemaö for both of these entries while ôpublicizingö them at both
   locations in the directory name-space.

   Server B from the previous example would have a subschema sub-entry

   dn: cn=schema, ou=Dept 14, ou=Marketing, o=Your Company
   objectclass: ldapSubEntry
   objectclass: ldapSubSchemaSubEntry
   objectclass: subschema
   attributetypes: . . .
   objectclasses: . . .
   matchingrules: . . .

   By basing this object class on the ldapSubEntry construct, the
   active schema is presumed to be ôin effectö in the directory name-
   space starting at the directory entry directly above the
   ldapSubSchemaSubEntry/ldapSubEntry, until another
   ldapSubSchemaSubEntry object is encountered lower in the directory

   3) define a new root DSE attribute which ôpoints toö the subschema
   sub-entry entries that are active within that specific server (since
   it is possible that multiple schemas may be active within a single

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 7]

                     Identifying multiple schemas

   Since multiple active schemas may exist across the directory name-
   space, it would be useful for applications to be able to query the
   root DSE entry in a directory server to find the names of all
   ôactive schemasö in that server.  The ôsubschemasubentryö attribute
   in the root DSE is not used for this purpose since this attribute
   should be used to refer to the subschema sub-entry attribute which
   controls the formats of the attributes used in the root DSE.

   A new attribute must be defined to hold this information:

   ( NAME æsubschemasubentriesÆ
      SYNTAX distinguishedName
      EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
      DESC æmulti-valued attribute in the root DSE which points to
            all ldapSubSchemaSubEntry entries that are in effect/used
            on this serverÆ )

8.  Summary

   This document has described the current problem of naming subschema
   sub-entry entries with identical names across multiple LDAP servers
   that are using different ôactive schemasö.   Problems can occur for
   applications that are attempting to access and/or modify the
   currently ôactive schemaö, especially when LDAP referrals are used
   in the environment to build a directory name-space that spans
   multiple directory servers.

   This document recommends that subschema sub-entries build on the
   ldapSubEntry construct to unambiguously name subschema sub-entry
   entries across the directory name-space as well as provide a ôhintö
   for applications in determining the ôactive schemaö that will be
   used when a new entry is added to the directory.  The name of the
   scubschema sub-entry is distinct in the overall directory name-space
   from other subschema sub-entries by their placement in the name-
   space.  In addition, this document defines a new root DSE attribute
   to allow directory servers to ôpublicizeö the set of subschema sub-
   entries that are controlling entries in the portion of the directory
   name-space being served by that server.

9.  Security Considerations

   There are no additional security considerations introduced by the
   recommendations made in this document.  It should be noted that
   access to and update of the active schema in a directory server
   should be controlled by some means of access control to ensure that
   only qualified entities are able to access and/or update the active
   schema.  Unauthorized updates to the active schema could cause
   existing information in the directory to become unreachable.

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 8]

                     Identifying multiple schemas

10. References

   M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, ôLightweight Directory Access Protocol
   (v3)ö, RFC 2251, December 1997.

   M. Wahl, A. Coulbeck, T. Howes, S. Kille, öLightweight Directory
   Access Protocol (v3):  Attribute Syntax Definitionsö, RFC 2252,
   December 1997.

   G. Good, ôThe LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) - Technical
   Specificationö, RFC 2849, June 2000.

   K. Zeilenga, ôNamed Subordinate References in LDAP Directoriesö,
   Internet Draft, draft-zeilenga-ldap-namedref-03.txt.

   E. Reed, ôLDAP SubEntry Definitionö, Internet Draft, draft-ietf-
   ldup-subentry-08.txt, April 2001.

11. Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). 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

   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

12. Author's Address

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                 [Page 9]

                     Identifying multiple schemas
   Tim Hahn
   Bldg 256-2, Dept. C8NG
   1701 North St.
   Endicott, NY  13760  USA
   E-mail:  hahnt@us.ibm.com

   Hahn                  Expires January 2002                [Page 10]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/