--- 1/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt 2006-02-05 00:11:49.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt 2006-02-05 00:11:50.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,430 +1,199 @@ Internet-Draft Editor: J. Sermersheim Intended Category: Standard Track Novell, Inc -Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt January 2002 +Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt March 2002 Obsoletes: RFC 2251 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3) + LDAP: The Protocol -1. Status of this Memo +Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of [RFC2026]. + 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 . Please send editorial comments directly to the editor . -Table of Contents - - 1. Status of this Memo..............................................1 - 2. Abstract.........................................................2 - 3. Models...........................................................3 - 3.1. Protocol Model.................................................3 - 3.2. Data Model.....................................................4 - 3.2.1. Attributes of Entries........................................4 - 3.2.2. Subschema Entries and Subentries.............................6 - 3.3. Relationship to X.500..........................................7 - 3.4. Server-specific Data Requirements..............................7 - 4. Elements of Protocol.............................................8 - 4.1. Common Elements................................................8 - 4.1.1. Message Envelope.............................................8 - 4.1.1.1. Message ID.................................................9 - 4.1.2. String Types.................................................9 - 4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name..........10 - 4.1.4. Attribute Type..............................................10 - 4.1.5. Attribute Description.......................................11 - 4.1.5.1. Binary Option.............................................13 - 4.1.6. Attribute Value.............................................13 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 1 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 +Abstract - 4.1.7. Attribute Value Assertion...................................14 - 4.1.8. Attribute...................................................14 - 4.1.9. Matching Rule Identifier....................................15 - 4.1.10. Result Message.............................................15 - 4.1.11. Referral...................................................17 - 4.1.12. Controls...................................................18 - 4.2. Bind Operation................................................19 - 4.2.1. Sequencing of the Bind Request..............................20 - 4.2.2. Authentication and Other Security Services..................21 - 4.2.3. Bind Response...............................................21 - 4.3. Unbind Operation..............................................22 - 4.4. Unsolicited Notification......................................22 - 4.4.1. Notice of Disconnection.....................................23 - 4.5. Search Operation..............................................23 - 4.5.1. Search Request..............................................24 - 4.5.2. Search Result...............................................27 - 4.5.3. Continuation References in the Search Result................28 - 4.6. Modify Operation..............................................30 - 4.7. Add Operation.................................................31 - 4.8. Delete Operation..............................................32 - 4.9. Modify DN Operation...........................................33 - 4.10. Compare Operation............................................34 - 4.11. Abandon Operation............................................35 - 4.12. Extended Operation...........................................35 - 5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer.........................36 - 5.1. Protocol Encoding.............................................36 - 5.2. Transfer Protocols............................................36 - 5.2.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).........................36 - 6. Implementation Guidelines.......................................37 - 6.1. Server Implementations........................................37 - 6.2. Client Implementations........................................37 - 7. Security Considerations.........................................37 - 8. Acknowledgements................................................38 - 9. Bibliography....................................................38 - 10. Editor's Address...............................................39 - Appendix A - Complete ASN.1 Definition.............................40 - Appendix B - Change History........................................45 - B.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:......................................45 - B.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:............45 - B.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:............46 - B.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:............46 - B.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:............48 - B.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:............50 - B.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:............50 - Appendix C - Outstanding Work Items................................50 + 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). -2. Abstract +Table of Contents - The protocol described in this document is designed to provide access - to directories supporting the [X.500] models, while not incurring the - resource requirements of the X.500 Directory Access Protocol (DAP). - This protocol is specifically targeted at management applications and - browser applications that provide read/write interactive access to + 1. Introduction.....................................................2 + 2. Conventions......................................................3 + 3. Protocol Model...................................................3 + 4. Elements of Protocol.............................................3 + 4.1. Common Elements................................................4 + 4.1.1. Message Envelope.............................................4 + 4.1.1.1. Message ID.................................................5 + 4.1.2. String Types.................................................6 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 2 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 1 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - directories. When used with a directory supporting the X.500 - protocols, it is intended to be a complement to the X.500 DAP. - - 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]. - - Key aspects of this version of LDAP are: - - - All protocol elements of LDAPv2 [RFC1777] are supported. The - protocol is carried directly over TCP or other transport, - bypassing much of the session/presentation overhead of X.500 DAP. + 4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name...........6 + 4.1.5. Attribute Description........................................6 + 4.1.5.1. Binary Transfer Option.....................................7 + 4.1.6. Attribute Value..............................................8 + 4.1.7. Attribute Value Assertion....................................8 + 4.1.8. Attribute....................................................9 + 4.1.9. Matching Rule Identifier.....................................9 + 4.1.10. Result Message.............................................10 + 4.1.11. Referral...................................................11 + 4.1.12. Controls...................................................12 + 4.2. Bind Operation................................................13 + 4.2.1. Sequencing of the Bind Request..............................14 + 4.2.3. Bind Response...............................................15 + 4.3. Unbind Operation..............................................16 + 4.4. Unsolicited Notification......................................16 + 4.4.1. Notice of Disconnection.....................................17 + 4.5. Search Operation..............................................17 + 4.5.1. Search Request..............................................17 + 4.5.2. Search Result...............................................21 + 4.5.3. Continuation References in the Search Result................22 + 4.6. Modify Operation..............................................24 + 4.7. Add Operation.................................................25 + 4.8. Delete Operation..............................................26 + 4.9. Modify DN Operation...........................................27 + 4.10. Compare Operation............................................28 + 4.11. Abandon Operation............................................29 + 4.12. Extended Operation...........................................29 + 5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer.........................30 + 5.1. Protocol Encoding.............................................30 + 5.2. Transfer Protocols............................................30 + 5.2.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).........................31 + 6. Implementation Guidelines.......................................31 + 6.1. Server Implementations........................................31 + 6.2. Client Implementations........................................31 + 7. Security Considerations.........................................31 + 8. Acknowledgements................................................32 + 9. Normative References............................................32 + 10. Editor's Address...............................................33 + Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes.....................................34 + A.1 Non-Error Result Codes.........................................34 + A.2 Error Result Codes.............................................34 + A.3 Classes and Precedence of Error Result Codes...................34 + Appendix C - Change History........................................45 + C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:......................................45 + C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:............45 + C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:............46 + C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:............46 + C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:............48 + C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:............50 + C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:............50 + Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items................................54 - - Most protocol data elements can be encoded as ordinary strings - (e.g., Distinguished Names). +1. Introduction - - Referrals to other servers may be returned. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 2 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - SASL mechanisms may be used with LDAP to provide association - security services. + 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. - - Attribute values and Distinguished Names have been - internationalized through the use of the ISO 10646 character set. + This document details the protocol elements of Lightweight Directory + Access Protocol, along with their semantic meanings. Following the + description of protocol elements, it describes the way in which the + protocol is encoded and transferred. - - The protocol can be extended to support new operations, and - controls may be used to extend existing operations. + This document is an integral part of the LDAP Technical Specification + [Roadmap]. - - Schema is published in the directory to be used by clients. + This document replaces RFC 2251. Appendix C holds a detailed log of + changes to RFC 2251. At publication time, this appendix will be + distilled to a summary of changes to RFC 2251. -3. Models +2. Conventions - Interest in X.500 directory technologies in the Internet has led to - efforts to reduce the high cost of entry associated with use of these - technologies. This document continues the efforts to define directory - protocol alternatives, updating the LDAPv2 protocol specification. + 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]. -3.1. Protocol Model +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. - 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. - 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. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 3 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. - In LDAP versions 1 and 2, no provision was made for protocol servers - returning referrals to clients. However, for improved performance and - distribution, this version of the protocol permits servers to return - to clients, referrals to other servers. This allows servers to - offload the work of contacting other servers to progress operations. - Note that the core protocol operations defined in this document can be mapped to a strict subset of the X.500(1997) directory abstract - service, so it can be cleanly provided by the DAP. 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. - -3.2. Data Model - - This section provides a brief introduction to the X.500 data model, - as used by LDAP. - - The LDAP protocol assumes there are one or more servers which jointly - provide access to a Directory Information Tree (DIT). The tree is - made up of entries. Entries have names: one or more attribute values - from the entry form its relative distinguished name (RDN), which MUST - be unique among all its siblings. The concatenation of the relative - distinguished names of the sequence of entries from a particular - entry to an immediate subordinate of the root of the tree forms that - entry's Distinguished Name (DN), which is unique in the tree. An - example of a Distinguished Name is: - - CN=Steve Kille, O=Isode Limited, C=GB - - Some servers may hold cache or shadow copies of entries, which can be - used to answer search and comparison queries, but will return - referrals or contact other servers if modification operations are - requested. - - Servers that perform caching or shadowing MUST ensure that they do - not violate any access control constraints placed on the data by the - originating server. - - The largest collection of entries, starting at an entry that is - mastered by a particular server, and including all its subordinates - and their subordinates, down to the entries which are mastered by - different servers, is termed a naming context. The root of the DIT is - a DSA-specific Entry (DSE) and not part of any naming context: each - server has different attribute values in the root DSE. (DSA is an - X.500 term for the directory server). - -3.2.1. Attributes of Entries - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 4 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - Entries consist of a set of attributes. 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 functions. - - An example of an attribute is "mail". There may be one or more values - of this attribute, they must be IA5 (ASCII) strings, and they are - case insensitive (e.g. "foo@bar.com" will match "FOO@BAR.COM"). - - Schema is the collection of attribute type definitions, object class - definitions and other information which a server uses to determine - how to match a filter or attribute value assertion (in a compare - operation) against the attributes of an entry, and whether to permit - add and modify operations. The definition of schema for use with LDAP - is given in [RFC2252] and [X.501]. Additional schema elements may be - defined in other documents. - - Each entry MUST have an objectClass attribute. The objectClass - attribute specifies the object classes of an entry, which along with - the system and user schema determine the permitted attributes of an - entry. Values of this attribute may be modified by clients, but the - objectClass attribute cannot be removed. Servers may restrict the - modifications of this attribute to prevent the basic structural class - of the entry from being changed (e.g. one cannot change a person into - a country). When creating an entry or adding an objectClass value to - an entry, all superclasses of the named classes are implicitly added - as well if not already present, and the client must supply values for - any mandatory attributes of new superclasses. - - Some attributes, termed operational attributes (as defined in Section - 12.4.1 of [X.501]), are used by servers for administering the - directory system itself. They are not returned in search results - unless explicitly requested by name. Attributes which are not - operational, such as "mail", will have their schema and syntax - constraints enforced by servers, but servers will generally not make - use of their values. - - Servers MUST NOT permit clients to add attributes to an entry unless - those attributes are permitted by the object class definitions, the - schema controlling that entry (specified in the subschema û see - below), or are operational attributes known to that server and used - for administrative purposes. Note that there is a particular - objectClass 'extensibleObject' defined in [RFC2252] which permits all - user attributes to be present in an entry. - - Entries MAY contain, among others, the following operational - attributes, defined in [RFC2252]. These attributes are maintained - automatically by the server and are not modifiable by clients: - - - creatorsName: the Distinguished Name of the user who added this - entry to the directory. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 5 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - - createTimestamp: the time this entry was added to the directory. - - - modifiersName: the Distinguished Name of the user who last - modified this entry. - - - modifyTimestamp: the time this entry was last modified. - - - subschemaSubentry: the Distinguished Name of the subschema entry - (or subentry) which controls the schema for this entry. - -3.2.2. Subschema Entries and Subentries - - Subschema entries are used for administering information about the - directory schema, in particular the object classes and attribute - types supported by directory servers. A single subschema entry - contains all schema definitions used by entries in a particular part - of the directory tree. - - Servers which follow X.500(93) models SHOULD implement subschema - using the X.500 subschema mechanisms, and so these subschemas are not - ordinary entries. LDAP clients SHOULD NOT assume that servers - implement any of the other aspects of X.500 subschema. A server which - masters entries and permits clients to modify these entries MUST - implement and provide access to these subschema entries, so that its - clients may discover the attributes and object classes which are - permitted to be present. It is strongly recommended that all other - servers implement this as well. - - The following four attributes MUST be present in all subschema - entries: - - - cn: this attribute MUST be used to form the RDN of the subschema - entry. - - - objectClass: the attribute MUST have at least the values "top" and - "subschema". - - - objectClasses: each value of this attribute specifies an object - class known to the server. - - - attributeTypes: each value of this attribute specifies an - attribute type known to the server. - - These are defined in [RFC2252]. Other attributes MAY be present in - subschema entries, to reflect additional supported capabilities. - - These include matchingRules, matchingRuleUse, dITStructureRules, - dITContentRules, nameForms and ldapSyntaxes. - - Servers SHOULD provide the attributes createTimestamp and - modifyTimestamp in subschema entries, in order to allow clients to - maintain their caches of schema information. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 6 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - Clients MUST only retrieve attributes from a subschema entry by - requesting a base object search of the entry, where the search filter - is "(objectClass=subschema)". This will allow LDAPv3 servers which - gateway to X.500(93) to detect that subentry information is being - requested. - -3.3. Relationship to X.500 - - This document defines LDAP in terms of X.500 as an X.500 access - mechanism. An LDAP server MUST act in accordance with the X.500(1993) - series of ITU recommendations when providing the service. However, it - is not required that an LDAP server make use of any X.500 protocols - in providing this service, e.g. LDAP can be mapped onto any other - directory system so long as the X.500 data and service model as used - in LDAP is not violated in the LDAP interface. - -3.4. Server-specific Data Requirements - - An LDAP server MUST provide information about itself and other - information that is specific to each server. This is represented as a - group of attributes located in the root DSE (DSA-Specific Entry), - which is named with the zero-length LDAPDN. These attributes are - retrievable if a client performs a base object search of the root - with filter "(objectClass=*)", however they are subject to access - control restrictions. The root DSE MUST NOT be included if the client - performs a subtree search starting from the root. - - Servers may allow clients to modify these attributes. - - The following attributes of the root DSE are defined in section 5 of - [RFC2252]. Additional attributes may be defined in other documents. - - - namingContexts: naming contexts held in the server. Naming - contexts are defined in section 17 of [X.501]. - - - subschemaSubentry: subschema entry (or subentry) holding the - schema for the root DSE. - - - altServer: alternative servers in case this one is later - unavailable. - - - supportedExtension: list of supported extended operations. - - - supportedControl: list of supported controls. - - - supportedSASLMechanisms: list of supported SASL security features. - - - supportedLDAPVersion: LDAP versions implemented by the server. + service. 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. - If the server does not master entries and does not know the locations - of schema information, the subschemaSubentry attribute is not present - in the root DSE. If the server masters directory entries under one or - more schema rules, the schema for each entry is found by reading the - subschemaSubentry attribute for that entry. +4. Elements of Protocol -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 7 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 3 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 -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]. In order to support future extensions to this - protocol, clients and servers MUST ignore elements of SEQUENCE - encodings whose tags they do not recognize. Section 5.1 specifies how - the protocol is encoded and transferred. + Encoding Rules [X.690]. Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is + encoded and transferred. - Note that unlike X.500, each change to the LDAP protocol other than - through the extension mechanisms will have a different version - number. A client will indicate the version it supports as part of the - bind request, described in section 4.2. If a client has not sent a - bind, the server MUST assume that version 3 or later is supported in - the client (since version 2 required that the client bind first). + In order to support future 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 those described in [LDAPIANA] + 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. Servers - which implement version 3 or later versions MUST provide this - attribute. Servers which only implement version 2 may not provide - this attribute. + reading the supportedLDAPVersion attribute from the root DSE + [Models]. Servers which implement version 3 or later versions 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 @@ -440,27 +209,27 @@ 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, -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 8 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 4 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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) -- @@ -482,277 +251,174 @@ If the client receives a PDU from the server, which cannot be parsed, the client may discard the PDU, or may abruptly close the connection. The ASN.1 type Controls is defined in section 4.1.12. 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 value different from the - values of any other requests outstanding in the LDAP session of which - this message is a part. + 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. A client MUST NOT send a second request with the same message ID as an earlier request on the same connection if the client has not received the final response from the earlier request. Otherwise the behavior is undefined. Typical clients increment a counter for each request. A client MUST NOT reuse the message id of an abandonRequest or of the abandoned operation until it has received a response from the server for another request invoked subsequent to the abandonRequest, as the abandonRequest itself does not have a response. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 5 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 9 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - [ISO10646] character set (a superset of Unicode) is used, encoded following the UTF-8 algorithm [RFC2044]. 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 + 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. - - LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING - - A value of LDAPOID is defined by the following ABNF [RFC2234]: - - ldapOID = number *( DOT number ) - - number = ( LDIGIT *DIGIT ) / DIGIT - - DOT = %x2E ; "." - - LDIGIT = %x31-39 ; 1-9 + 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]. - DIGIT = %x30 / LDIGIT ; 0-9 + 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 [RFC2253], such - that: - - distinguished-name = name - - relative-distinguished-name = name-component - - where name and name-component are as defined in [RFC2253]. + 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] - Only Attribute Types can be present in a relative distinguished name - component--the options of Attribute Descriptions (next section) MUST - NOT be used in specifying distinguished names. - -4.1.4. Attribute Type - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 10 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - An AttributeType takes on as its value the textual string associated - with that AttributeType in its specification. - - AttributeType ::= LDAPString - - Each attribute type has a unique OBJECT IDENTIFIER which has been - assigned to it. This identifier may be written as defined by ldapOID - in section 4.1.2. - - A specification may also assign one or more textual names for an - attribute type. These names MUST begin with a letter, and only - contain ASCII letters, digit characters and hyphens. They are case - insensitive. These ASCII characters are identical to ISO 10646 - characters whose UTF-8 encoding is a single byte between 0x00 and - 0x7F. - - If the server has a textual name for an attribute type, it MUST use a - textual name for attributes returned in search results. The dotted- - decimal OBJECT IDENTIFIER is only used if there is no textual name - for an attribute type. - - Attribute type textual names are non-unique, as two different - specifications (neither in standards track RFCs) may choose the same - name. - - A server which masters or shadows entries SHOULD list all the - attribute types it supports in the subschema entries, using the - attributeTypes attribute. Servers which support an open-ended set of - attributes SHOULD include at least the attributeTypes value for the - 'objectClass' attribute. Clients MAY retrieve the attributeTypes - value from subschema entries in order to obtain the OBJECT IDENTIFIER - and other information associated with attribute types. - - Some attribute type names which are used in this version of LDAP are - described in [RFC2252]. Servers may implement additional attribute - types. - -4.1.5. Attribute Description +4.1.5. Attribute Descriptions - An AttributeDescription is a superset of the definition of the - AttributeType. It has the same ASN.1 definition, but allows - additional options to be specified. The entire AttributeDescription - is case insensitive. + 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. AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString + -- Constrained to attributedescription + -- [Models] - A value of AttributeDescription is based on the following ABNF: - - attributeDescription = attributeType options - - attributeType = AttributeType - ; as described in Section 4.1.4 - - options = *( SEMICOLON options ) + Examples of valid AttributeDescription: -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 11 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 6 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - option = 1*opt-char - - opt-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / HYPHEN - - SEMICOLON = %x3B ; ";" - - ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z - - HYPHEN = %x2D ; "-" - - Examples of valid AttributeDescription: - cn userCertificate;binary Not all options can be associated with attributes held in the directory. A server will treat an AttributeDescription with any - options it does not implement as unrecognized. The order in which - options appear in the list MUST NOT be used to impart any semantic - meaning. Servers MUST treat any two AttributeDescription with the - same AttributeType and options as equivalent. + options it does not implement or support as unrecognized. The order + in which options appear in the list MUST NOT be used to impart any + semantic meaning. Servers MUST treat any two AttributeDescription + with the same AttributeType and options as equivalent. - An attribute description that contains mutually exclusive options - shall be treated as unrecognized. That is, "cn;binary;gser" (where - "binary" and "gser" are mutually exclusive) is to be treated as an - unrecognized attribute. + AttributeDescriptionList describes a list of 0 or more attribute + descriptions. (A list of zero elements has special significance in + the Search request.) - There are multiple kinds of attribute description options. The LDAP - technical specification details two kinds: tagging options (such as - language tag options) and transfer options (such as ;binary). Other - documents may detail other kinds. + AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF + AttributeDescription - Tagging options can be held in the directory and are never mutually - exclusive. An attribute with N tagging options is considered a direct - subtype of all attributes of the same type and all but one of the N - options. If the type has a supertype, then the attribute is also - considered a direct subtype of the attribute of the supertype and the - N tagging options. That is, cn;lang_de;lang_en is considered a direct - subtype of cn;lang_de, cn;lang_en, and name;lang_de;lang_en (cn is a - subtype of name). +4.1.5.1 Transfer Options Transfer options are not held in the directory, they only affect the encoding used to transfer values. The absence of a transfer option - implies the native encoding. Transfer options are mutually exclusive. - Specifying a transfer option when requesting attributes to be - returned in a SearchRequest causes that encoding to be used for that - attribute and its subtypes. That is, requesting name;binary requests - the attribute name and its subtypes (e.g., cn, sn, cn;lang_en, etc.) - be returned using binary transfer. + implies the native encoding. + + Transfer options are mutually exclusive. Specifying a transfer option + when requesting attributes to be returned in a SearchRequest causes + that encoding to be used for that attribute and its subtypes. That + is, requesting name;binary requests the attribute name and its + subtypes (e.g., cn, sn, cn;lang_en, etc.) be returned using binary + transfer. When specifying return attributes for a SearchRequest, clients SHOULD avoid requesting the return of attributes related to each other in the attribute subtyping hierarchy with different transfer encodings. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 12 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - For example, requesting name;lang_en;binary and cn should be avoided as it ambiguous as to how cn;lang_en is to be transferred. In such cases, the server's behavior is undefined (the server can return the values in either, neither, or both encodings). - Other documents may specify other kinds of options. These documents - must detail how new kinds of options relate to tagging and transfer - options. In particular, the document must describe how the options - relation to the attribute subtyping hierarchy. - One transfer option, "binary", is defined in this document. Additional options may be defined in IETF standards-track and experimental RFCs. Options beginning with "x-" are reserved for private experiments. - The data type "AttributeDescriptionList" describes a list of 0 or - more attribute types. (A list of zero elements has special - significance in the Search request.) - - AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF - AttributeDescription - -4.1.5.1. Binary Option +4.1.5.2. Binary Transfer Option If the "binary" option is present in an AttributeDescription, it - overrides the native encoding representation defined for that - attribute in [RFC2252]. Instead the attribute is to be transferred as - a binary value encoded using the Basic Encoding Rules [X.690]. The - syntax of the binary value is an ASN.1 data type definition, which is - referenced by the "SYNTAX" part of the attribute type definition. + specifies that data within the AttributeValue(s) of the attribute be + transferred in protocol as BER encoded data according to the ASN.1 + data type corresponding to the attribute's LDAP syntax. The LDAP + syntax is indicated by the "SYNTAX" part of the + AttributeTypeDescription. + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 7 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 The presence or absence of the "binary" option only affects the transfer of attribute values in protocol; servers store any - particular attribute in a single format. If a client requests that a - server return an attribute in the binary format, but the server - cannot generate that format, the server MUST treat this attribute - type as an unrecognized attribute type. Similarly, clients MUST NOT - expect servers to return an attribute in binary format if the client + particular attribute in a server-defined format. If a client requests + that a server return an attribute in the "binary" format, but the + server cannot generate that format, the server MUST treat the + attribute type as unrecognized. Similarly, clients MUST NOT expect + servers to return an attribute with the "binary" option if the client requested that attribute by name without the "binary" option. This option is intended to be used with attributes whose syntax is a - complex ASN.1 data type, and the structure of values of that type is - needed by clients. Examples of this kind of syntax are "Certificate" - and "CertificateList". + complex ASN.1 data type, but may be associated with any attribute + whose ASN.1 type is known. 4.1.6. Attribute Value A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING containing an encoded value of an AttributeValue data type. The value is encoded according to its native encoding definition, unless an option specifying the transfer encoding is present in the companion AttributeDescription to the AttributeValue (e.g. "binary"). -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 13 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - The native encoding definitions for different syntaxes and attribute - types may be found in other documents, and in particular [RFC2252]. + types may be found in other documents, and in particular [Syntaxes]. At the time of this writing, there is only one AttributeDescription option used to specify transfer encoding--"binary", described in - section 4.1.5.1. + section 4.1.5.2. 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 @@ -762,81 +428,85 @@ Clients MUST NOT send attribute values in a request that are not valid according to the syntax defined for the attributes. 4.1.7. 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 { + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 8 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + attributeDesc AttributeDescription, assertionValue AssertionValue } AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING - If an option specifying the transfer encoding is present in - attributeDesc, the assertionValue is encoded as specified by the - option. For example, if the "binary" option is present in the - attributeDesc, the AssertionValue is BER encoded. + If a transfer option is present in attributeDesc, the assertionValue + is encoded as specified by the option. For example, if the "binary" + option is present in the attributeDesc, the AssertionValue is BER + encoded. - For all the string-valued user attributes described in [RFC2252], the - assertion value syntax is the same as the value syntax. Clients may - use attribute values as assertion values in compare requests and + For all the string-valued user attributes described in [Syntaxes], + the assertion value syntax is the same as the value syntax. Clients + may use attribute values as assertion values in compare requests and search filters. Note however that the assertion syntax may be different from the value syntax for other attributes or for non-equality matching rules. These may have an assertion syntax which contains only part of the value. See section 20.2.1.8 of [X.501] for examples. 4.1.8. Attribute - An attribute consists of a type and one or more values of that type. - (Though attributes MUST have at least one value when stored, due to - access control restrictions the set may be empty when transferred - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 14 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - from the server to the client. This is described in section 4.5.2, - concerning the PartialAttributeList type.) + 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 - order of attribute values within the vals set is undefined and - implementation-dependent, and MUST NOT be relied upon. + 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. 4.1.9. Matching Rule Identifier A matching rule is a means of expressing how a server should compare an AssertionValue received in a search filter with an abstract data value. The matching rule defines the syntax of the assertion value and the process to be performed in the server. An X.501 (1993) Matching Rule is identified in the LDAP protocol by the printable representation of its OBJECT IDENTIFIER, either as one - of the strings given in [RFC2252], or as decimal digits with + of the strings given in [Syntaxes], or as decimal digits with components separated by periods, e.g. "caseIgnoreIA5Match" or "1.3.6.1.4.1.453.33.33". MatchingRuleId ::= LDAPString +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 9 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 [RFC2252]. + information is given in section 4.5 of [Syntaxes]. 4.1.10. 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 LDAPResponse to indicate the final status of a protocol operation request. LDAPResult ::= SEQUENCE { @@ -845,24 +515,20 @@ operationsError (1), protocolError (2), timeLimitExceeded (3), sizeLimitExceeded (4), compareFalse (5), compareTrue (6), authMethodNotSupported (7), strongAuthRequired (8), -- 9 reserved -- referral (10), - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 15 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - adminLimitExceeded (11), unavailableCriticalExtension (12), confidentialityRequired (13), saslBindInProgress (14), noSuchAttribute (16), undefinedAttributeType (17), inappropriateMatching (18), constraintViolation (19), attributeOrValueExists (20), invalidAttributeSyntax (21), @@ -874,110 +540,102 @@ 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 Sep 2002 Page 10 + 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) }, + other (80), + ... }, -- 81-90 reserved for APIs -- matchedDN LDAPDN, errorMessage LDAPString, referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL } - All the result codes with the exception of success, compareFalse and - compareTrue are to be treated as meaning the operation could not be - completed in its entirety. - - Most of the result codes are based on problem indications from X.511 - error data types. Result codes from 16 to 21 indicate an - AttributeProblem, codes 32, 33, 34 and 36 indicate a NameProblem, - codes 48, 49 and 50 indicate a SecurityProblem, codes 51 to 54 - indicate a ServiceProblem, and codes 64 to 69 and 71 indicates an - UpdateProblem. - - If a client receives a result code which is not listed above, it is - to be treated as an unknown error condition. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 16 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 errorMessage 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 avoided) error diagnostic. As this error diagnostic is not standardized, implementations MUST NOT rely on the values returned. If the server chooses not to return a textual diagnostic, the errorMessage field of the LDAPResult type MUST contain a zero length string. For result codes of 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 is to be set to a zero length string - with all other result codes. + of [X.511]. The matchedDN field contains a zero length string with + all other result codes. 4.1.11. 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. The referral is not returned for a singleLevel or wholeSubtree search in which the search scope spans multiple naming contexts, and several different servers would need to be contacted to complete the + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 11 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + operation. Instead, continuation references, described in section 4.5.3, are returned. 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 [RFC2255]. If an alias was dereferenced, the part of the URL + to [LDAPDN]. If an alias was dereferenced, the part of the URL MUST be present, with the new target object name. If the 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 is present in an LDAPURL, the client MUST use this filter in its next - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 17 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 @@ -995,20 +653,24 @@ 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 is only used when a control accompanies one of the following requests: bindRequest, + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 12 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + searchRequest, modifyRequest, addRequest, delRequest, modDNRequest, compareRequest, or extendedReq. The use of the criticality field for a control that is part of any other operation is ignored and 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 @@ -1018,173 +680,126 @@ 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 July 2002 Page 18 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - This document does not define any controls. Controls may be defined in other documents. The definition 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. - Servers list the controls which they recognize in the + Servers list the controlType of all recognized controls in the supportedControl attribute in the root DSE. 4.2. Bind Operation The function of the Bind Operation is to allow authentication - information to be exchanged between the client and server. + information to be exchanged between the client and server. Prior to + the 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, + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 13 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + -- 1 and 2 reserved - sasl [3] SaslCredentials } + sasl [3] SaslCredentials, + ... } SaslCredentials ::= SEQUENCE { mechanism LDAPString, credentials OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } Parameters of the Bind Request are: - version: A version number indicating the version of the protocol to be used in this protocol session. 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 client requests protocol version 2, a - server that supports the version 2 protocol as described in - [RFC1777] will not return any v3-specific protocol fields. (Note - that not all LDAP servers will support protocol version 2, since - they may be unable to generate the attribute syntaxes associated - with version 2.) + 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, when authentication has been performed at a lower layer, or when using SASL credentials with a mechanism that includes the name in the credentials. Server behavior is undefined when the name is a null value, simple authentication is used, and a password is specified. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 19 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Note that 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. + 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. Upon receipt of a Bind Request, a protocol server will authenticate the requesting client, if necessary. The server will then return a Bind Response to the client indicating the status of the authentication. 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. Sequencing of the Bind Request For some SASL authentication mechanisms, it may be necessary for the client to invoke the BindRequest multiple times. 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 14 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. - Unlike LDAP v2, the client need not send a Bind Request in the first - PDU of the connection. The client may request any operations and the - server MUST treat these as anonymous. If the server requires that the - client bind before browsing or modifying the directory, the server - MAY reject a request other than binding, unbinding or an extended - request with the "operationsError" result. - 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 will 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. - Clients MAY send multiple bind requests on a connection to change - their credentials. A subsequent bind process has the effect of - abandoning all operations outstanding on the connection. (This - simplifies server implementation.) Authentication from earlier binds - are subsequently ignored, and so if the bind fails, the connection - will be treated as anonymous. If a SASL transfer encryption or - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 20 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - 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. - -4.2.2. Authentication and Other Security Services - - The simple authentication option provides minimal authentication - facilities, with the contents of the authentication field consisting - only of a cleartext password. Note that the use of cleartext - passwords is not recommended over open networks when the underlying - transport service cannot guarantee confidentiality; see the "Security - Considerations" section. - - If anonymous authentication is to be performed, then the simple - authentication option MUST be chosen, and the password be of zero - length. (This is often done by LDAPv2 clients.) Typically the name is - also of zero length. - - The sasl choice allows for any mechanism defined for use with SASL - [RFC2222]. The mechanism field contains the name of the mechanism. - The credentials field contains the arbitrary data used for - authentication, inside an OCTET STRING wrapper. Note that unlike some - Internet application protocols where SASL is used, LDAP is not text- - based, thus no base64 transformations are performed on the - credentials. - - If any SASL-based integrity or confidentiality services are enabled, - they take effect following the transmission by the server and - reception by the client of the final BindResponse with resultCode - success. - - The client can request that the server use authentication information - from a lower layer protocol by using the SASL EXTERNAL mechanism. - 4.2.3. 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. @@ -1192,37 +807,37 @@ If the bind was successful, the resultCode will be success, otherwise it will be one of: - operationsError: server encountered an internal error. - protocolError: unrecognized version number or incorrect PDU structure. - authMethodNotSupported: unrecognized SASL mechanism name. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 21 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - strongAuthRequired: the server requires authentication be performed with a SASL mechanism. - referral: this server cannot accept this bind and the client should try another. - saslBindInProgress: the server requires the client to send a new bind request, with the same sasl mechanism, to continue the authentication process. - inappropriateAuthentication: the server requires the client which had attempted to bind anonymously or without supplying credentials to provide some form of credentials. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 15 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - invalidCredentials: the wrong password was supplied or the SASL credentials could not be processed. - unavailable: the server is shutting down. If the server does not support the client's requested protocol version, it MUST set the resultCode to protocolError. If the client receives a BindResponse response where the resultCode was protocolError, it MUST close the connection as the server will be @@ -1248,38 +863,37 @@ UnbindRequest, a protocol client may assume that the protocol session is terminated. Upon receipt of an UnbindRequest, a protocol server may assume that the requesting client has terminated the session and that all outstanding requests may be discarded, and may 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 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 22 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 16 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 client MUST NOT assume that any outstanding requests which modified @@ -1307,32 +921,33 @@ 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 23 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 4.5.1. Search Request The Search Request is defined as follows: SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE { baseObject LDAPDN, scope ENUMERATED { baseObject (0), singleLevel (1), + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 17 + 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, @@ -1363,34 +978,34 @@ 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 24 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - 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; +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 18 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + derefInSearching: dereference aliases in subordinates of the base object in searching, but not in locating the base object of the search; 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. @@ -1420,34 +1035,34 @@ '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 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 25 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 19 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 entry, and FALSE otherwise (including a presence test with an unrecognized attribute description.) 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 @@ -1478,53 +1093,52 @@ 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 July 2002 Page 26 - 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 specific operational - attributes). + to request all user attributes in addition to any specified + operational attributes). + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 20 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 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 [RFC2252].) + 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. @@ -1536,34 +1150,33 @@ or SearchResultDone data types. SearchResultEntry ::= [APPLICATION 4] SEQUENCE { objectName LDAPDN, attributes PartialAttributeList } PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } -- implementors should note that the PartialAttributeList may - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 27 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - -- 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 21 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + Upon receipt of a Search Request, a server will perform the necessary search of the DIT. If the LDAP session 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 @@ -1595,35 +1208,37 @@ set of servers for continuing the operation. 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. In the absence of indexing information provided to a server from servers holding subordinate naming contexts, SearchResultReference responses are not affected by search filters and are always returned when in scope. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 28 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - The SearchResultReference is of the same data type as the Referral. URLs for servers implementing the LDAP protocol are written according - to [RFC2255]. The part MUST be present in the URL, with the new + to [LDAPDN]. The 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 22 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. Other aspects of the new search request - may be the same or different as the search which generated the - continuation references. + 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 a connection between a client and @@ -1651,30 +1266,30 @@ } 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,O=MNN,C=WW", the server might respond as follows: SearchResultEntry for OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 29 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - SearchResultReference { ldap://hoste/OU=Managers,OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW } SearchResultReference { ldap://hostf/OU=Consultants,OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW } + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 23 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 "O=XYZ,C=US" to hosta, the server may return only a SearchResultDone containing a referral. SearchResultDone (referral) { ldap://hostg/ } @@ -1708,28 +1323,29 @@ - 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: -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 30 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 24 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 modify attempted by the server upon receipt of a @@ -1764,28 +1380,29 @@ 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 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 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 31 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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, + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 25 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 @@ -1822,26 +1439,27 @@ 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 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 32 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 26 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 @@ -1877,27 +1495,27 @@ - newSuperior: if present, this is the Distinguished Name of the entry which becomes the immediate superior 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 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 33 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 27 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. 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 @@ -1935,25 +1553,26 @@ 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. 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 34 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Note that some directory systems may establish access controls which permit the values of certain attributes (such as userPassword) to be + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 28 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + compared but not read. In a search result, it may be that an attribute of that type would be returned, but with an empty set of values. 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: @@ -1991,26 +1610,25 @@ 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 } -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 35 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 29 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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, @@ -2048,41 +1666,41 @@ 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) - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 36 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 30 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 +5.2.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) + The encoded LDAPMessage PDUs are mapped directly onto the TCP bytestream. It is recommended that server implementations running over the TCP MAY 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 This document describes an Internet protocol. 6.1. Server Implementations The server MUST be capable of recognizing all the mandatory attribute - type names and implement the syntaxes specified in [RFC2252]. Servers - MAY also recognize additional attribute type names. + type names and implement the syntaxes specified in [Syntaxes]. + Servers MAY also recognize additional attribute type names. 6.2. Client Implementations Clients which request referrals 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 may be using 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. @@ -2090,136 +1708,419 @@ 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 subschema entries referenced by the subschemaSubentry attribute in the server's root DSE or in entries held by the server. 7. Security Considerations When used with a connection-oriented transport, this version of the - protocol provides facilities for the LDAP v2 authentication - mechanism, simple authentication using a cleartext password, as well - as any SASL mechanism [RFC2222]. SASL allows for integrity and - privacy services to be negotiated. + 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 31 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 37 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. 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. Bibliography - - [ISO10646] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) - - Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1 - : 1993. + 9. Normative References [X.500] ITU-T Rec. X.500, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts, Models and Service", 1993. - [X.501] ITU-T Rec. X.501, "The Directory: Models", 1993. + [Roadmap] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: Technical Specification Road + Map", draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt (a work in progress). - [X.511] ITU-T Rec. X.511, "The Directory: Abstract Service - Definition", 1993. + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. - [X.680] ITU-T Rec. X.680, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - - Specification of Basic Notation", 1994. + [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. - [RFC1777] Yeong, W., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory - Access Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995. + [LDAPIANA] K. Zeilenga, "IANA Considerations for LDAP", draft-ietf- + ldapbis-xx.txt (a work in progress). - [RFC1823] Howes, T., and M. Smith, "The LDAP Application Program - Interface", RFC 1823, August 1995. + [ISO10646] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) - + Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1 + : 1993. [RFC2044] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646", RFC 2044, October 1996. - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [RFC2222] Meyers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer", - RFC 2222, October 1997. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 38 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 32 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - [RFC2234] Crocker, D., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax - Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. + [Models] K. Zeilenga, "LDAP: The Models", draft-ietf-ldapbis- + models-xx.txt (a work in progress). - [RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and S. Kille, - "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute - Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997. + [LDAPDN] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: String Representation of + Distinguished Names", draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-xx.txt, (a + work in progress). - [RFC2253] Kille, S., Wahl, M., and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory - Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of - Distinguished Names", RFC 2253, December 1997. + [Syntaxes] K. Dally (editor), "LDAP: Syntaxes", draft-ietf-ldapbis- + syntaxes-xx.txt, (a work in progress). - [RFC2255] Howes, T., and M. Smith, "The LDAP URL Format", RFC 2255, - December 1997. + [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. - [RFC2829] Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J., and R. Morgan, - "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000 + [AuthMeth] R. Harrison (editor), "LDAP: Authentication Methods", + draft-ietf-ldapbis-authmeth-xx.txt, (a work in progress). - [RFC2830] Hodges, J., Morgan, R., and M. Wahl "Lightweight Directory - Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer - Security", RFC 2830, May 2000 + [RFC2222] Meyers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer", + RFC 2222, October 1997. 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 July 2002 Page 39 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 33 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 -Appendix A - Complete ASN.1 Definition +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. + + Server implementations SHALL NOT continue processing an operation + after it has determined that an error is to be reported. 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: + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 34 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + success (0) + + Indicates successful completion of an operation. + + This result code is normally not returned by the compare + operation, see compareFalse (5) and compareTrue (6). + + 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 [RFC2830] while there are other operations + outstanding or if TLS was already established. + + For the bind operation only, the code indicates the server + encountered an internal error. + + 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 TRUE. + + This result code is normally only returned by the compare + operation. + + compareTrue (6) + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 35 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + Indicates that the operation successfully completes and the + assertion has evaluated to FALSE. + + This result code is normally only returned by the compare + operation. + + authMethodNotSupported (7) + + Indicates that 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 admnistrative 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. + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 36 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + undefinedAttributeType (17) + + 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. + + 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 Sep 2002 Page 37 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + aliasDereferencingProblem (36) + + Indicates that a problem in dereferencing an alias. + + 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 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) + + Indicates that the entry violates object class restrictions. + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 38 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + 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 Sep 2002 Page 39 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + Appendix B - Complete ASN.1 Definition + + This appendix is normative. Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol-V3 DEFINITIONS - IMPLICIT TAGS ::= + IMPLICIT TAGS + EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED ::= BEGIN LDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE { messageID MessageID, protocolOp CHOICE { bindRequest BindRequest, bindResponse BindResponse, unbindRequest UnbindRequest, searchRequest SearchRequest, @@ -2238,42 +2139,42 @@ 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 + LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded, + -- [ISO10646] characters - LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING + LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to numericoid [Models] LDAPDN ::= LDAPString RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString - AttributeType ::= LDAPString - AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString + -- Constrained to attributedescription + -- [Models] AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF AttributeDescription +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 40 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE { - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 40 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - attributeDesc AttributeDescription, assertionValue AssertionValue } AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING Attribute ::= SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } MatchingRuleId ::= LDAPString @@ -2310,33 +2211,34 @@ -- 37-47 unused -- inappropriateAuthentication (48), invalidCredentials (49), insufficientAccessRights (50), busy (51), unavailable (52), unwillingToPerform (53), loopDetect (54), -- 55-63 unused -- namingViolation (64), + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 41 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + objectClassViolation (65), notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66), notAllowedOnRDN (67), entryAlreadyExists (68), - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 41 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - objectClassModsProhibited (69), -- 70 reserved for CLDAP -- affectsMultipleDSAs (71), -- 72-79 unused -- - other (80) }, + other (80), + ... }, -- 81-90 reserved for APIs -- matchedDN LDAPDN, errorMessage LDAPString, referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL } Referral ::= SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL LDAPURL ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in -- URLs @@ -2348,48 +2250,49 @@ 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 } + 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), wholeSubtree (2) }, + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 42 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + derefAliases ENUMERATED { neverDerefAliases (0), derefInSearching (1), derefFindingBaseObj (2), derefAlways (3) }, sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 42 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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, @@ -2424,30 +2327,30 @@ vals SET OF AttributeValue } SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE { object LDAPDN, modification SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { operation ENUMERATED { + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 43 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + add (0), delete (1), replace (2) }, modification AttributeTypeAndValues } } AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE { - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 43 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult AddRequest ::= [APPLICATION 8] SEQUENCE { entry LDAPDN, attributes AttributeList } AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { @@ -2480,618 +2383,743 @@ 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 July 2002 Page 44 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 44 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 -Appendix B - Change History +Appendix C - Change History -B.1 Changes made to RFC 2251: +C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251: -B.1.1 Editorial +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). -B.1.2 Section 1 +C.1.2 Section 1 - Removed IESG note. -B.1.3 Section 9 +C.1.3 Section 9 - Added references to RFCs 1823, 2234, 2829 and 2830. -B.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt: +C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt: -B.2.1 Section 4.1.6 +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. -B.2.2 Section 4.1.7 +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. -B.2.3 Sections 4.2, 4.9, 4.10 +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 servers SHOULD NOT dereference aliases. Specifications were added because they were missing from the previous version and caused -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 45 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 45 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 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. -B.2.4 Sections 4.5 and Appendix A +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. -B.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt: +C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt: -B.3.1 Section 3.4 +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. -B.3.2 Section 4.1.12 +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. -B.3.3 Section 4.2 +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. -B.3.4 Section 4.2.(various) +C.3.4 Section 4.2.(various) - Changed "unauthenticated" to "anonymous" and "DN" and "LDAPDN" to "name" -B.3.5 Section 4.2.2 +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" -B.3.6 Section 4.5.2 +C.3.6 Section 4.5.2 - Removed all mention of ExtendedResponse due to lack of implementation. -B.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt: +C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt: -B.4.1 Section 4 +C.4.1 Section 4 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 46 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 46 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. -B.4.2 Section 4.1.8 +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. -B.4.3 Section 4.1.10 +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. -B.4.4 Section 4.1.11 +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. -B.4.5 Section 4.1.12 +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). -B.4.6 Section 4.4 +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. -B.4.7 Section 4.5.1 +C.4.7 Section 4.5.1 - 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 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 47 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 47 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 the terms present and presence rather than exists and existence in search filters). -B.4.8 Section 4.5.3 +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. -B.4.9 Section 4.6 +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. -B.4.10 Section 4.7 +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. -B.4.11 Section 4.11 +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. -B.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt: +C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt: -B.5.1 Section 3.2.1 +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 functions.". This points out that an attribute consists of both the type and options. -B.5.2 Section 4 +C.5.2 Section 4 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 48 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 48 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Changed "Section 5.1 specifies the encoding rules for the LDAP protocol" to "Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded and transferred." -B.5.3 Section 4.1.2 +C.5.3 Section 4.1.2 - Added ABNF for the textual representation of LDAPOID. Previously, there was no formal BNF for this construct. -B.5.4 Section 4.1.4 +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. -B.5.5 Section 4.1.5 +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. -B.5.6 Section 4.1.11 +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. -B.5.7 Section 4.5.1 and Appendix A +C.5.7 Section 4.5.1 and Appendix A - Added the comment "-- initial and final can occur at most once", to clarify this restriction. -B.5.8 Section 5.1 +C.5.8 Section 5.1 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 49 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 49 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Changed heading from "Mapping Onto BER-based Transport Services" to "Protocol Encoding". -B.5.9 Section 5.2.1 +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. -B.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt: +C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt: -B.6.1 Section 4.5.1 and Appendix A +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 -B.6.2 Various +C.6.2 Various - Fixed various typo's -B.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt: +C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt: -B.7.1 Section 3.2.1 +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. -B.7.2 Section 4.1.5 +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. -B.7.3 Sections 4.1.5.1 and 4.1.6 +C.7.3 Sections 4.1.5.1 and 4.1.6 - Refer to non "binary" transfer encodings as "native encoding" rather than "string" encoding to clarify and avoid confusion. -Appendix C - Outstanding Work Items +C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt: -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 50 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 50 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 -C.1 Integrate result codes draft. +C.8.1 Title - - The result codes draft should be reconciled with this draft. - Operation-specific instructions will reside with operations while - the error-specific sections will be added as an appendix. + - Changed to "LDAP: The Protocol" to be consisted with other working + group documents -C.2 Section 3.1 +C.8.2 Abstract - - Add "This also increases the complexity of clients in this - version." to fourth paragraph. + - Moved above TOC to conform to new guidelines -C.3 Section 4 + - Reworded to make consistent with other WG documents. - - Change "MUST ignore elements of SEQUENCE encodings whose tags they - do not recognize" to "MUST ignore tagged elements of SEQUENCE - encodings that they do not recognize" in the first paragraph. - - Change "version 2 may not provide this attribute." to "version 2 - MAY NOT provide this attribute, or a root DSE." in the third - paragraph. + - Moved 2119 conventions to "Conventions" section -C.4 Section 4.1.1 +C.8.3 Introduction - - Change "the client may discard the PDU, or may abruptly close the - connection." to "the client MAY discard the PDU, or MAY abruptly - close the connection." in the fourth paragraph. + - Created to conform to new guidelines -C.5 Section 4.1.1.1 +C.8.4 Models - - Add "If an unsolicited notification as described in section 4.4 is - sent from a server, the messageID value MUST be zero." to first - paragraph. - - Change "MUST have a value different" to "MUST have a non-zero - value different" in the second paragraph. - - Remove "or of the abandoned operation until it has received a - response from the server for another request invoked subsequent to - the abandonRequest," from the fourth paragraph as this imposes - synchronous behavior on the server. + - Removed section. There is only one model in this document + (Protocol Model) -C.7 Section 4.1.4 +C.8.5 Protocol Model - - Add "Note that due to the restriction above, and due to this - allowance, servers MUST ensure that, within a controlling - subschema, no two attributes be named the same." to the fifth - paragraph. - - Resolve issue on list with the subject "Attribute Type character - set". + - 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." -C.8 Section 4.1.5 + - Removed antiquated paragraph concerning LDAP v1 and v2 and + referrals. - - Change "A server may treat" to "A server MUST treat" in the second - to last paragraph. - - Change "A server MUST treat an AttributeDescription with any - options it does not implement as an unrecognized attribute type." +C.8.6 Data Model -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 51 + - 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 + + - 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 51 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - to "A server MUST treat an AttributeDescription with any options - it does not implement or support as an unrecognized attribute - type." in the second to last paragraph. - - Clarify the statement "An AttributeDescription with one or more - options is treated as a subtype of the attribute type without any - options". There is an unresolved thread titles "RFC 2596 - questions" on the ietf-ldapext list regarding this. + - Removed references to LDAPv2 in third and fourth paragraphs. -C.9 Section 4.1.5.1 +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" + + - Clarified the fact that clients cannot rely on any apparent + ordering of attribute values. + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 52 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + +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]. + + - Removed AttributeType. It is not used. + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 53 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + +Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items + +D.1 Integrate result codes draft. + + - The result codes draft should be reconciled with this draft. + Operation-specific instructions will reside with operations while + the error-specific sections will be added as an appendix. Note + that there is a result codes appendix now. Still need to reconcile + with each operation. + +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]. + +D.5 Section 4.1.1.1 + + - Remove "or of the abandoned operation until it has received a + response from the server for another request invoked subsequent to + the abandonRequest," from the fourth paragraph as this imposes + synchronous behavior on the server. + +D.9 Section 4.1.5.2 - Add "Servers SHOULD only return attributes with printable string representations as binary when clients request binary transfer." to the second paragraph. - Clarify whether the "binary" attribute type option is to be treated as a subtype. -C.10 Section 4.1.6 +D.10 Section 4.1.6 - Change "containing an encoded value of an AttributeValue data type" to "containing an encoded attribute value data type" -C.11 Section 4.1.7 +D.11 Section 4.1.7 - Change "For all the string-valued user attributes described in [5], the assertion value syntax is the same as the value syntax." to "The assertion value syntax for all attributes using human- readable syntaxes as described in [RFC2252] is the same as the value syntax unless otherwise noted (an example being objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch)." in the third paragraph. - Find out what the last sentence in third paragraph means (Clients may use attributes...) - - Add a fourth paragraph: "Servers SHOULD NOT generate codes 81-90 - as these are reserved for use by historical APIs [RFC 1823]. Later - API specifications SHOULD avoid using the resultCode enumeration - to represent anything other than a protocol result indication." -C.13 Section 4.1.11 +D.13 Section 4.1.11 - Add "after locating the target entry" to the first paragraph. -C.14 Section 4.1.12 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 54 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + +D.14 Section 4.1.12 - Specify whether or not servers are to advertise the OIDs of known response controls. -C.15 Section 4.2 +D.15 Section 4.2 - Change "LDAPDN" to "identity" in the definition of the name field. - Rework definition of the name field to enumerate empty password and name combinations. -C.17 Section 4.2.2 +D.17 Section 4.2.2 - Add "as the authentication identity" to second paragraph. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 52 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - -C.18 Section 4.2.3 +D.18 Section 4.2.3 - Change "If the bind was successful, the resultCode will be success, otherwise it will be one of" to "If the bind was successful, the resultCode will be success, otherwise it MAY be one of" in the third paragraph. . - Change "operationsError" to "other" as a result code. - Change "If the client bound with the password choice" to "If the client bound with the simple choice" in the last paragraph. -C.19 Section 4.3 +D.19 Section 4.3 - Change "a protocol client may assume that the protocol session is terminated and MAY close the connection." to "a protocol client MUST assume that the protocol session is terminated and MAY close the connection." in the second paragraph. - Change "a protocol server may assume" to "a protocol server MUST assume" in the second paragraph. - Change "and may close the connection" to "and MUST close the connection" in the second paragraph. -C.20 Section 4.4 +D.20 Section 4.4 - Add "Servers SHOULD NOT assume LDAPv3 clients understand or recognize unsolicited notifications or unsolicited controls other than Notice of Disconnection defined below. Servers SHOULD avoid sending unsolicited notifications unless they know (by related request or other means) that the client can make use of the notification." as a fourth paragraph. -C.21 Section 4.5.1 +D.21 Section 4.5.1 - Make sure the use of "subordinates" in the derefInSearching definition is correct. See "derefInSearching" on list. -C.22 Section 4.5.2 +D.22 Section 4.5.2 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 55 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Add "associated with a search operation" to the sixth paragraph. - - Same problem as in C.5. + - Same problem as in D.5. -C.23 Section 4.5.3 +D.23 Section 4.5.3 - 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. - 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 53 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - -C.24 Section 4.5.3.1 +D.24 Section 4.5.3.1 - Change examples to use dc naming. -C.25 Section 4.6 +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. -C.26 Section 4.7 +D.26 Section 4.7 - Change examples to use dc naming. - Clarify the paragraph that talks about structure rules. See "discussing structure rules" on the list. -C.27 Section 4.10 +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. -C.28 Section 4.11 +D.28 Section 4.11 - Change "(since these may have been in transit when the abandon was requested)." to "(since these may either have been in transit when the abandon was requested, or are not able to be abandoned)." in the fifth paragraph. - Add "Abandon and Unbind operations are not able to be abandoned. Other operations, in particular update operations, or operations that have been chained, may not be abandonable (or immediately abandonable)." as the sixth paragraph. -C.29 Section 4.12 +D.29 Section 4.12 - Change "digitally signed operations and results" to "for instance StartTLS [RFC2830]" -C.30 Section 5.1 +D.30 Section 5.1 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 56 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Add "control and extended operation values" to last paragraph. See "LBER (BER Restrictions)" on list. -C.31 Section 5.2.1 +D.31 Section 5.2.1 - Add "using the BER-based described in section 5.1". -C.32 Section 6.1 +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. - 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 54 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - -C.33 Section 7 +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. - Add "This document provides a mechanism which clients may use to discover operational attributes. Those relying on security by obscurity should implement appropriate access controls to restricts access to operational attributes per local policy." as an eighth paragraph. - Add "This document provides a mechanism which clients may use to discover operational attributes. Those relying on security by obscurity should implement appropriate access controls to restricts access to operational attributes per local policy." as an eighth paragraph. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires July 2002 Page 55 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 57 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Full Copyright Statement - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. + 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 @@ -3102,10 +3130,12 @@ 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 Sep 2002 Page 58