--- 1/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt 2006-02-05 00:11:51.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt 2006-02-05 00:11:51.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,14 +1,14 @@ Internet-Draft Editor: J. Sermersheim Intended Category: Standard Track Novell, Inc -Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt March 2002 +Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt June 2002 Obsoletes: RFC 2251 LDAP: The Protocol Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering @@ -43,78 +43,79 @@ 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 Sep 2002 Page 1 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 1 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 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 + 4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions.......................................6 + 4.1.5. Attribute Value..............................................7 + 4.1.6. Attribute Value Assertion....................................7 + 4.1.7. Attribute....................................................8 + 4.1.8. Matching Rule Identifier.....................................8 + 4.1.9. Result Message...............................................8 + 4.1.10. Referral...................................................10 + 4.1.11. Controls...................................................11 + 4.2. Bind Operation................................................12 + 4.2.1. Sequencing of the Bind Request..............................13 + 4.2.2. Bind Response...............................................13 + 4.3. Unbind Operation..............................................15 + 4.4. Unsolicited Notification......................................15 + 4.4.1. Notice of Disconnection.....................................15 + 4.5. Search Operation..............................................16 + 4.5.1. Search Request..............................................16 + 4.5.2. Search Result...............................................20 + 4.5.3. Continuation References in the Search Result................21 + 4.6. Modify Operation..............................................23 + 4.7. Add Operation.................................................24 + 4.8. Delete Operation..............................................25 + 4.9. Modify DN Operation...........................................26 + 4.10. Compare Operation............................................27 + 4.11. Abandon Operation............................................28 + 4.12. Extended Operation...........................................28 + 5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer.........................29 + 5.1. Protocol Encoding.............................................29 + 5.2. Transfer Protocols............................................29 + 5.2.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).........................30 + 6. Implementation Guidelines.......................................30 + 6.1. Server Implementations........................................30 + 6.2. Client Implementations........................................30 + 7. Security Considerations.........................................30 + 8. Acknowledgements................................................31 + 9. Normative References............................................31 + 10. Editor's Address...............................................32 + Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes.....................................33 + A.1 Non-Error Result Codes.........................................33 + A.2 Error Result Codes.............................................33 + A.3 Classes and Precedence of Error Result Codes...................33 + Appendix C - Change History........................................44 + C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:......................................44 + C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:............44 + C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:............45 + C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:............45 + C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:............47 + C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:............49 + C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:............49 + C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:............50 + C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:............53 + Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items................................53 1. Introduction -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 2 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 2 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 The Directory is "a collection of open systems cooperating to provide directory services" [X.500]. A Directory user, which may be a human or other entity, accesses the Directory through a client (or Directory User Agent (DUA)). The client, on behalf of the directory user, interacts with one or more servers (or Directory System Agents (DSA)). Clients interact with servers using a directory access protocol. @@ -147,53 +148,52 @@ errors to the requesting client. Note that although servers are required to return responses whenever such responses are defined in the protocol, there is no requirement for synchronous behavior on the part of either clients or servers. Requests and responses for multiple operations may be exchanged between a client and server in any order, provided the client eventually receives a response for every request that requires one. Note that the core protocol operations defined in this document can - be mapped to a strict subset of the X.500(1997) directory abstract - 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. + be mapped to a subset of the X.500(1997) directory abstract 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. 4. Elements of Protocol -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 3 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 3 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 The LDAP protocol is described using Abstract Syntax Notation 1 (ASN.1) [X.680], and is transferred using a subset of ASN.1 Basic Encoding Rules [X.690]. Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded and transferred. - In order to support future 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. + In order to support future Standards Track extensions to this + protocol, extensibility is implied where it is allowed (per ASN.1). + In addition, ellipses (...) have been supplied in ASN.1 types that + are explicitly extensible as discussed in [LDAPIANA]. Because of the + implied extensibility, clients and servers MUST ignore trailing + SEQUENCE elements whose tags they do not recognize. Changes to the LDAP protocol other than 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 - [Models]. Servers which implement version 3 or later versions MUST - provide this attribute. + [Models]. Servers which implement version 3 or later MUST provide + this attribute. 4.1. Common Elements This section describes the LDAPMessage envelope PDU (Protocol Data Unit) format, as well as data type definitions, which are used in the protocol operations. 4.1.1. Message Envelope For the purposes of protocol exchanges, all protocol operations are @@ -210,80 +210,82 @@ searchResEntry SearchResultEntry, searchResDone SearchResultDone, searchResRef SearchResultReference, modifyRequest ModifyRequest, modifyResponse ModifyResponse, addRequest AddRequest, addResponse AddResponse, delRequest DelRequest, delResponse DelResponse, -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 4 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 4 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 modDNRequest ModifyDNRequest, modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse, compareRequest CompareRequest, compareResponse CompareResponse, abandonRequest AbandonRequest, extendedReq ExtendedRequest, - extendedResp ExtendedResponse }, + extendedResp ExtendedResponse, + ... }, controls [0] Controls OPTIONAL } MessageID ::= INTEGER (0 .. maxInt) maxInt INTEGER ::= 2147483647 -- (2^^31 - 1) -- The function of the LDAPMessage is to provide an envelope containing common fields required in all protocol exchanges. At this time the only common fields are the message ID and the controls. If the server receives a PDU from the client in which the LDAPMessage SEQUENCE tag cannot be recognized, the messageID cannot be parsed, the tag of the protocolOp is not recognized as a request, or the encoding structures or lengths of data fields are found to be - incorrect, then the server MUST return the notice of disconnection - described in section 4.4.1, with resultCode protocolError, and - immediately close the connection. In other cases that the server - cannot parse the request received by the client, the server MUST - return an appropriate response to the request, with the resultCode - set to protocolError. + incorrect, then the server MAY return the Notice of Disconnection + described in section 4.4.1, with resultCode protocolError, and MUST + immediately close the connection. - 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. + In other cases where the client or server cannot parse a PDU, it + SHOULD abruptly close the connection where further communication + (including providing notice) would be pernicious. Otherwise, server + implementations MUST return an appropriate response to the request, + with the resultCode set to protocolError. - The ASN.1 type Controls is defined in section 4.1.12. + The ASN.1 type Controls is defined in section 4.1.11. 4.1.1.1. Message ID All LDAPMessage envelopes encapsulating responses contain the messageID value of the corresponding request LDAPMessage. The message ID of a request MUST have a non-zero value different from the values of any other requests outstanding in the LDAP 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 5 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + for another request invoked subsequent to the abandonRequest, as the + abandonRequest itself does not have a response. + 4.1.2. String Types The LDAPString is a notational convenience to indicate that, although strings of LDAPString type encode as OCTET STRING types, the [ISO10646] character set (a superset of Unicode) is used, encoded following the UTF-8 algorithm [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. @@ -308,218 +310,143 @@ An LDAPDN and a RelativeLDAPDN are respectively defined to be the representation of a distinguished-name and a relative-distinguished- name after encoding according to the specification in [LDAPDN]. LDAPDN ::= LDAPString -- Constrained to distinguishedName [LDAPDN] RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString -- Constrained to name-component [LDAPDN] -4.1.5. Attribute Descriptions +4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions The definition and encoding rules for attribute descriptions are defined in Section 2.5 of [Models]. Briefly, an attribute description is an attribute type and zero or more options. AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString -- Constrained to attributedescription -- [Models] - Examples of valid AttributeDescription: - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 6 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 6 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 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. + with the same attribute type and options as equivalent. AttributeDescriptionList describes a list of 0 or more attribute descriptions. (A list of zero elements has special significance in the Search request.) AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF AttributeDescription -4.1.5.1 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. - - 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. - 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). - - 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. - -4.1.5.2. Binary Transfer Option - - If the "binary" option is present in an AttributeDescription, it - 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 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, but may be associated with any attribute - whose ASN.1 type is known. - -4.1.6. Attribute Value +4.1.5. 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"). - - The native encoding definitions for different syntaxes and attribute - 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 4.1.5.2. + encoded attribute value data type. The value is encoded according to + its LDAP-specific encoding definition. The LDAP-specific encoding + definitions for different syntaxes and attribute types may be found + in other documents, and in particular [Syntaxes]. AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING Note that there is no defined limit on the size of this encoding; thus protocol values may include multi-megabyte attributes (e.g. photographs). Attributes may be defined which have arbitrary and non-printable syntax. Implementations MUST NOT display nor attempt to decode as ASN.1, a value if its syntax is not known. The implementation may attempt to discover the subschema of the source entry, and retrieve the values of attributeTypes from it. Clients MUST NOT send attribute values in a request that are not valid according to the syntax defined for the attributes. -4.1.7. Attribute Value Assertion +4.1.6. Attribute Value Assertion The AttributeValueAssertion type definition is similar to the one in the X.500 directory standards. It contains an attribute description and a matching rule assertion value suitable for that type. AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE { - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 8 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - attributeDesc AttributeDescription, assertionValue AssertionValue } AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING - 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. + The syntax of the AssertionValue depends on the context of the LDAP + operation being performed. For example, the syntax of the EQUALITY - 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 7 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. + matching rule for an attribute is used when performing a Compare + operation. Often this is the same syntax used for values of the + attribute type, but in some cases the assertion syntax differs from + the value syntax. See objectIdentiferFirstComponentMatch in + [Syntaxes] for an example. -4.1.8. Attribute +4.1.7. Attribute An attribute consists of an attribute description and one or more values of that attribute description. (Though attributes MUST have at least one value when stored, due to access control restrictions the set may be empty when transferred from the server to the client. This is described in section 4.5.2, concerning the PartialAttributeList type.) Attribute ::= SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } Each attribute value is distinct in the set (no duplicates). The set of attribute values is unordered. Implementations MUST NOT reply upon any apparent ordering being repeatable. -4.1.9. 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. +4.1.8. Matching Rule Identifier - 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 [Syntaxes], or as decimal digits with - components separated by periods, e.g. "caseIgnoreIA5Match" or - "1.3.6.1.4.1.453.33.33". + Matching rules are defined in 4.1.3 of [Models]. A matching rule is + identified in the LDAP protocol by the printable representation of + either its numericoid, or one of its short name descriptors, e.g. + "caseIgnoreIA5Match" or "1.3.6.1.4.1.453.33.33". MatchingRuleId ::= LDAPString -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 [Syntaxes]. -4.1.10. Result Message +4.1.9. Result Message The LDAPResult is the construct used in this protocol to return success or failure indications from servers to clients. To various requests, servers will return responses of LDAPResult or responses containing the components of LDAPResponse to indicate the final status of a protocol operation request. LDAPResult ::= SEQUENCE { resultCode ENUMERATED { success (0), operationsError (1), + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 8 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + protocolError (2), timeLimitExceeded (3), sizeLimitExceeded (4), compareFalse (5), compareTrue (6), authMethodNotSupported (7), strongAuthRequired (8), -- 9 reserved -- referral (10), adminLimitExceeded (11), @@ -540,157 +467,157 @@ 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), ... }, -- 81-90 reserved for APIs -- matchedDN LDAPDN, errorMessage LDAPString, referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL } The result codes enumeration is extensible as defined in Section 3.5 of [LDAPIANA]. The meanings of the result codes are given in Appendix A. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 9 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 contains a zero length string with all other result codes. -4.1.11. Referral +4.1.10. Referral The referral result code indicates that the contacted server does not hold the target entry of the request. The referral field is present in an LDAPResult if the LDAPResult.resultCode field value is referral, and absent with all other result codes. It contains one or more references to one or more servers or services that may be accessed via LDAP or other protocols. Referrals can be returned in response to any operation request (except unbind and abandon which do not have responses). At least one URL MUST be present in the Referral. - The referral is not returned for a singleLevel or wholeSubtree search - in which the search scope spans multiple naming contexts, and several + During a search operation, after the baseObject is located, and + entries are being evaluated, the referral is not returned. Instead, + continuation references, described in section 4.5.3, are returned + when the search scope spans multiple naming contexts, and several different servers would need to be contacted to complete the - -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. + operation. Referral ::= SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL -- one or more LDAPURL ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in -- URLs If the client wishes to progress the operation, it MUST follow the referral by contacting one of the servers. If multiple URLs are present, the client assumes that any URL may be used to progress the operation. URLs for servers implementing the LDAP protocol are written according to [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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 10 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 request to progress this search, and if it is not present the client MUST use the same filter as it used for that search. Other aspects of the new request may be the same or different as the request which generated the referral. Note that UTF-8 characters appearing in a DN or search filter may not be legal for URLs (e.g. spaces) and MUST be escaped using the % method in [RFC2396]. Other kinds of URLs may be returned, so long as the operation could be performed using that protocol. -4.1.12. Controls +4.1.11. Controls A control is a way to specify extension information. Controls which are sent as part of a request apply only to that request and are not saved. Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF Control Control ::= SEQUENCE { controlType LDAPOID, criticality BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE, controlValue OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } The controlType field MUST be a UTF-8 encoded dotted-decimal representation of an OBJECT IDENTIFIER which uniquely identifies the control. This prevents conflicts between control names. The criticality field is either TRUE or FALSE and 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 appropriate for the operation, and the criticality field is TRUE, the server MUST NOT perform the operation, and MUST instead return the resultCode unavailableCriticalExtension. If the control is unrecognized or inappropriate but the criticality field is FALSE, the server MUST ignore the control. The controlValue contains any information associated with the control, and its format is defined for the control. Implementations MUST be prepared to handle arbitrary contents of the controlValue + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 11 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + octet string, including zero bytes. It is absent only if there is no value information which is associated with a control of its type. 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, @@ -710,50 +637,50 @@ 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, ... } 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 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 12 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. - Note that the server SHOULD NOT perform any alias dereferencing in + The server SHOULD NOT perform any alias dereferencing in determining the object to bind as. - authentication: information used to authenticate the name, if any, provided in the Bind Request. This type is extensible as defined in Section 3.6 of [LDAPIANA]. Servers that do not support a choice supplied by a client will return authMethodNotSupported in the result code of the BindResponse. Upon receipt of a Bind Request, a protocol server will authenticate the requesting client, if necessary. The server will then return a @@ -766,44 +693,44 @@ 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. 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. -4.2.3. Bind Response +4.2.2. Bind Response The Bind Response is defined as follows. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 13 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. If the bind was successful, the resultCode will be success, otherwise it will be one of: @@ -821,79 +748,76 @@ 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 unwilling to accept further operations. (This is for compatibility with earlier versions of LDAP, in which the bind was always the first operation, and there was no negotiation.) The serverSaslCreds are used as part of a SASL-defined bind mechanism to allow the client to authenticate the server to which it is communicating, or to perform "challenge-response" authentication. If - the client bound with the password choice, or the SASL mechanism does + the client bound with the simple choice, or the SASL mechanism does not require the server to return information to the client, then this field is not to be included in the result. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 14 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 4.3. Unbind Operation The function of the Unbind Operation is to terminate a protocol session. The Unbind Operation is defined as follows: UnbindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 2] NULL The Unbind Operation has no response defined. Upon transmission of an - UnbindRequest, a protocol client 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. + UnbindRequest, a protocol client MUST assume that the protocol + session is terminated. Upon receipt of an UnbindRequest, a protocol + server MUST assume that the requesting client has terminated the + session and that all outstanding requests may be discarded, and MUST + close the connection. 4.4. Unsolicited Notification An unsolicited notification is an LDAPMessage sent from the server to the client which is not in response to any LDAPMessage received by the server. It is used to signal an extraordinary condition in the server or in the connection between the client and the server. The notification is of an advisory nature, and the server will not expect any response to be returned from the client. The unsolicited notification is structured as an LDAPMessage in which the messageID is 0 and protocolOp is of the extendedResp form. The responseName field of the ExtendedResponse is present. The LDAPOID value MUST be unique for this notification, and not be used in any other situation. One unsolicited notification (Notice of Disconnection) is defined in this document. -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 @@ -901,20 +825,23 @@ The responseName is 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20036, the response field is absent, and the resultCode is used to indicate the reason for the disconnection. The following resultCode values are to be used in this notification: - protocolError: The server has received data from the client in which the LDAPMessage structure could not be parsed. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 15 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - strongAuthRequired: The server has detected that an established underlying security association protecting communication between the client and server has unexpectedly failed or been compromised. - unavailable: This server will stop accepting new connections and operations on all existing connections, and be unavailable for an extended period of time. The client may make use of an alternative server. After sending this notice, the server MUST close the connection. @@ -930,24 +857,20 @@ 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, @@ -956,20 +879,24 @@ Filter ::= CHOICE { and [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter, or [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter, not [2] Filter, equalityMatch [3] AttributeValueAssertion, substrings [4] SubstringFilter, greaterOrEqual [5] AttributeValueAssertion, lessOrEqual [6] AttributeValueAssertion, present [7] AttributeDescription, approxMatch [8] AttributeValueAssertion, + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 16 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion } SubstringFilter ::= SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, -- at least one must be present, -- initial and final can occur at most once substrings SEQUENCE OF CHOICE { initial [0] AssertionValue, any [1] AssertionValue, final [2] AssertionValue } } @@ -989,23 +916,20 @@ 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. @@ -1014,20 +938,23 @@ entries to be returned as a result of the search. A value of 0 in this field indicates that no client-requested size limit restrictions are in effect for the search. Servers may enforce a maximum number of entries to return. - timeLimit: A time limit that restricts the maximum time (in seconds) allowed for a search. A value of 0 in this field indicates that no client-requested time limit restrictions are in effect for the search. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 17 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - typesOnly: An indicator as to whether search results will contain both attribute types and values, or just attribute types. Setting this field to TRUE causes only attribute types (no values) to be returned. Setting this field to FALSE causes both attribute types and values to be returned. - filter: A filter that defines the conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the search to match a given entry. The 'and', 'or' and 'not' choices can be used to form combinations @@ -1045,31 +972,48 @@ 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 matching rule and assertion syntax for equalityMatch filter + items is defined by the EQUALITY matching rule for the attribute + type. + + The matching rule and assertion syntax for AssertionValues in a + substrings filter item is defined by the SUBSTR matching rule for + the attribute type. + + The matching rule and assertion syntax for greaterOrEqual and + lessOrEqual filter items is defined by the ORDERING matching rule + for the attribute type. + + The matching rule and assertion syntax for approxMatch filter + items is implementation-defined. If approximate matching is not + supported by the server, the filter item should be treated as an + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 18 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + equalityMatch. + The extensibleMatch is new in this version of LDAP. If the matchingRule field is absent, the type field MUST be present, and the equality match is performed for that type. If the type field is absent and matchingRule is present, the matchValue is compared against all attributes in an entry which support that matchingRule, and the matchingRule determines the syntax for the assertion value (the filter item evaluates to TRUE if it matches with at least one attribute in the entry, FALSE if it does not match any attribute in the entry, and Undefined if the matchingRule is not recognized or the assertionValue cannot be @@ -1104,28 +1048,28 @@ 7.8 of [X.511]. - attributes: A list of the attributes to be returned from each entry which matches the search filter. There are two special values which may be used: an empty list with no attributes, and the attribute description string "*". Both of these signify that all user attributes are to be returned. (The "*" allows the client to request all user attributes in addition to any specified operational attributes). -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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 19 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 @@ -1160,52 +1104,57 @@ -- 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 20 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 SearchResultReference PDUs may come in any order. Following all the SearchResultReference responses and all SearchResultEntry responses to be returned by the server, the server will return a response containing the SearchResultDone, which contains an indication of success, or detailing any errors that have occurred. Each entry returned in a SearchResultEntry will contain all attributes, complete with associated values if necessary, as specified in the attributes field of the Search Request. Return of attributes is subject to access control and other administrative - policy. Some attributes may be returned in binary format (indicated - by the AttributeDescription in the response having the "binary" - option present). + policy. Some attributes may be constructed by the server and appear in a SearchResultEntry attribute list, although they are not stored - attributes of an entry. Clients MUST NOT assume that all attributes + attributes of an entry. Clients SHOULD NOT assume that all attributes can be modified, even if permitted by access control. + If the serverĘs schema defines a textual name for an attribute type, + it MUST use a textual name for attributes of that attribute type by + specifying one of the textual names as the value of the attribute + type. Otherwise, the server uses the object identifier for the + attribute type by specifying the object identifier, in ldapOID form, + as the value of attribute type. + 4.5.3. Continuation References in the Search Result If the server was able to locate the entry referred to by the baseObject but was unable to search all the entries in the scope at and under the baseObject, the server may return one or more SearchResultReference entries, each containing a reference to another set of servers for continuing the operation. A server MUST NOT return 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. @@ -1214,25 +1163,25 @@ servers holding subordinate naming contexts, SearchResultReference responses are not affected by search filters and are always returned when in scope. The SearchResultReference is of the same data type as the Referral. URLs for servers implementing the LDAP protocol are written according to [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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 21 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + SearchResultReference. If the filter part of the URL is present in an LDAP URL, the client MUST use the new filter in its next request to progress the search, and if the filter part is absent the client will use again the same filter. If the originating search scope was singleLevel, the scope part of the URL will be baseObject. Other aspects of the new search request may be the same or different as the search which generated the continuation references. Other kinds of URLs may be returned so long as the operation could be performed using that protocol. The name of an unexplored subtree in a SearchResultReference need not @@ -1241,61 +1190,62 @@ 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 server, and if the client has multiple outstanding search operations, it MUST abandon each operation individually. 4.5.3.1. Example For example, suppose the contacted server (hosta) holds the entry - "O=MNN,C=WW" and the entry "CN=Manager,O=MNN,C=WW". It knows that - either LDAP-capable servers (hostb) or (hostc) hold - "OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW" (one is the master and the other server a - shadow), and that LDAP-capable server (hostd) holds the subtree - "OU=Roles,O=MNN,C=WW". If a subtree search of "O=MNN,C=WW" is - requested to the contacted server, it may return the following: + "DC=Example,DC=NET" and the entry "CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET". It + knows that either LDAP-capable servers (hostb) or (hostc) hold + "OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET" (one is the master and the other server + a shadow), and that LDAP-capable server (hostd) holds the subtree + "OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET". If a subtree search of + "DC=Example,DC=NET" is requested to the contacted server, it may + return the following: - SearchResultEntry for O=MNN,C=WW - SearchResultEntry for CN=Manager,O=MNN,C=WW + SearchResultEntry for DC=Example,DC=NET + SearchResultEntry for CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET SearchResultReference { - ldap://hostb/OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW - ldap://hostc/OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW + ldap://hostb/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET + ldap://hostc/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET } SearchResultReference { - ldap://hostd/OU=Roles,O=MNN,C=WW + ldap://hostd/OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET } SearchResultDone (success) Client implementors should note that when following a SearchResultReference, additional SearchResultReference may be generated. Continuing the example, if the client contacted the server - (hostb) and issued the search for the subtree "OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW", - the server might respond as follows: + (hostb) and issued the search for the subtree + "OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET", the server might respond as follows: - SearchResultEntry for OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW + SearchResultEntry for OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET SearchResultReference { - ldap://hoste/OU=Managers,OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW + ldap://hoste/OU=Managers,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET } SearchResultReference { - ldap://hostf/OU=Consultants,OU=People,O=MNN,C=WW - } -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 23 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 22 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + ldap://hostf/OU=Consultants,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET + } SearchResultDone (success) If the contacted server does not hold the base object for the search, then it will return a referral to the client. For example, if the - client requests a subtree search of "O=XYZ,C=US" to hosta, the server - may return only a SearchResultDone containing a referral. + client requests a subtree search of "DC=Example,DC=ORG" to hosta, the + server may return only a SearchResultDone containing a referral. SearchResultDone (referral) { ldap://hostg/ } 4.6. Modify Operation The Modify Operation allows a client to request that a modification of an entry be performed on its behalf by a server. The Modify Request is defined as follows: @@ -1326,26 +1276,25 @@ individual modifications may violate the directory schema, the resulting entry after the entire list of modifications is performed MUST conform to the requirements of the directory schema. The values that may be taken on by the 'operation' field in each modification construct have the following semantics respectively: add: add values listed to the given attribute, creating the attribute if necessary; - delete: delete values listed from the given attribute, - removing the entire attribute if no values are listed, or - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 24 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 23 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + delete: delete values listed from the given attribute, + removing the entire attribute if no values are listed, or if all current values of the attribute are listed for deletion; replace: replace all existing values of the given attribute with the new values listed, creating the attribute if it did not already exist. A replace with no value will delete the entire attribute if it exists, and is ignored if the attribute does not exist. The result of the modify attempted by the server upon receipt of a @@ -1383,26 +1332,25 @@ 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 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 24 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + AddRequest ::= [APPLICATION 8] SEQUENCE { + entry LDAPDN, attributes AttributeList } AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } Parameters of the Add Request are: - entry: the Distinguished Name of the entry to be added. Note that the server will not dereference any aliases in locating the entry @@ -1412,54 +1360,54 @@ entry being added. Clients MUST include distinguished values (those forming the entry's own RDN) in this list, the objectClass attribute, and values of any mandatory attributes of the listed object classes. Clients MUST NOT supply NO-USER-MODIFICATION attributes such as the createTimestamp or creatorsName attributes, since the server maintains these automatically. The entry named in the entry field of the AddRequest MUST NOT exist for the AddRequest to succeed. The parent of the entry to be added MUST exist. For example, if the client attempted to add - "CN=JS,O=Foo,C=US", the "O=Foo,C=US" entry did not exist, and the - "C=US" entry did exist, then the server would return the error - noSuchObject with the matchedDN field containing "C=US". If the - parent entry exists but is not in a naming context held by the + "CN=JS,DC=Example,DC=NET", the "DC=Example,DC=NET" entry did not + exist, and the "DC=NET" entry did exist, then the server would return + the error noSuchObject with the matchedDN field containing "DC=NET". + If the parent entry exists but is not in a naming context held by the server, the server SHOULD return a referral to the server holding the parent entry. Servers implementations SHOULD NOT restrict where entries can be - located in the directory. Some servers MAY allow the administrator to - restrict the classes of entries which can be added to the directory. + located in the directory unless DIT structure rules are in place. + Some servers MAY allow the administrator to restrict the classes of + entries which can be added to the directory. Upon receipt of an Add Request, a server will attempt to perform the add requested. The result of the add attempt will be returned to the client in the Add Response, defined as follows: AddResponse ::= [APPLICATION 9] LDAPResult 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 Dec 2002 Page 25 + 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 @@ -1495,27 +1443,27 @@ - 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 Dec 2002 Page 26 + 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 @@ -1550,32 +1498,30 @@ compared. The result of the compare attempted by the server upon receipt of a Compare Request is returned in the Compare Response, defined as follows: CompareResponse ::= [APPLICATION 15] LDAPResult Upon receipt of a Compare Request, a server will attempt to perform the requested comparison. The result of the comparison will be + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 27 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + returned to the client in the Compare Response. Note that errors and the result of comparison are all returned in the same construct. Note that some directory systems may establish access controls which permit the values of certain attributes (such as userPassword) to be - -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. + compared but not read. 4.11. Abandon Operation The function of the Abandon Operation is to allow a client to request that the server abandon an outstanding operation. The Abandon Request is defined as follows: AbandonRequest ::= [APPLICATION 16] MessageID The MessageID MUST be that of an operation which was requested @@ -1608,27 +1554,27 @@ An extension mechanism has been added in this version of LDAP, in order to allow additional operations to be defined for services not available elsewhere in this protocol, for instance digitally signed operations and results. The extended operation allows clients to make requests and receive responses with predefined syntaxes and semantics. These may be defined in RFCs or be private to particular implementations. Each request MUST have a unique OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to it. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 28 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + ExtendedRequest ::= [APPLICATION 23] SEQUENCE { requestName [0] LDAPOID, requestValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 29 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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, @@ -1662,35 +1608,34 @@ (4) If a value of a type is its default value, it MUST be absent. Only some BOOLEAN and INTEGER types have default values in this protocol definition. These restrictions do not apply to ASN.1 types encapsulated inside of OCTET STRING values, such as attribute values, unless otherwise noted. 5.2. Transfer Protocols +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 29 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + This protocol is designed to run over connection-oriented, reliable transports, with all 8 bits in an octet being significant in the data stream. -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. + over the TCP provide a protocol listener on the assigned port, 389. + Servers may instead provide a listener on a different port number. + Clients MUST support contacting servers on any valid TCP port. 6. Implementation Guidelines 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 [Syntaxes]. Servers MAY also recognize additional attribute type names. @@ -1715,21 +1660,21 @@ 7. Security Considerations When used with a connection-oriented transport, this version of the protocol provides facilities for simple authentication using a cleartext password, as well as any SASL mechanism [RFC2222]. SASL allows for integrity and privacy services to be negotiated. It is also permitted that the server can return its credentials to the client, if it chooses to do so. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 31 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 30 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 negotiation of the credentials, it takes precedence over any value in @@ -1749,45 +1694,46 @@ Steve Kille. Their work along with the input of individuals of the IETF LDAPEXT, LDUP, LDAPBIS, and other Working Groups is gratefully acknowledged. 9. Normative References [X.500] ITU-T Rec. X.500, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts, Models and Service", 1993. [Roadmap] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: Technical Specification Road - Map", draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt (a work in progress). + Map", draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt (a work in + progress). [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [X.680] ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:1998 Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation [X.690] ITU-T Rec. X.690, "Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic, Canonical, and Distinguished Encoding Rules", 1994. [LDAPIANA] K. Zeilenga, "IANA Considerations for LDAP", draft-ietf- ldapbis-xx.txt (a work in progress). [ISO10646] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) - Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1 : 1993. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 31 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + [RFC2044] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646", RFC 2044, October 1996. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 32 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - [Models] K. Zeilenga, "LDAP: The Models", draft-ietf-ldapbis- models-xx.txt (a work in progress). [LDAPDN] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: String Representation of Distinguished Names", draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-xx.txt, (a work in progress). [Syntaxes] K. Dally (editor), "LDAP: Syntaxes", draft-ietf-ldapbis- syntaxes-xx.txt, (a work in progress). @@ -1808,21 +1754,21 @@ 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 Sep 2002 Page 33 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 32 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes This normative appendix details additional considerations regarding LDAP result codes and provides a brief, general description of each LDAP result code enumerated in Section 4.1.10. Additional result codes MAY be defined for use with extensions. Client implementations SHALL treat any result code which they do not @@ -1865,21 +1811,21 @@ 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 33 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) @@ -1915,21 +1861,21 @@ 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 34 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) @@ -1964,21 +1910,21 @@ 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 35 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 @@ -2013,21 +1959,21 @@ 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 36 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 @@ -2061,21 +2007,21 @@ 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 37 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 @@ -2097,21 +2043,21 @@ 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 38 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Appendix B - Complete ASN.1 Definition This appendix is normative. Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol-V3 DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED ::= @@ -2132,46 +2078,48 @@ addRequest AddRequest, addResponse AddResponse, delRequest DelRequest, delResponse DelResponse, modDNRequest ModifyDNRequest, modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse, compareRequest CompareRequest, compareResponse CompareResponse, abandonRequest AbandonRequest, extendedReq ExtendedRequest, - extendedResp ExtendedResponse }, + extendedResp ExtendedResponse, + ... }, controls [0] Controls OPTIONAL } MessageID ::= INTEGER (0 .. maxInt) maxInt INTEGER ::= 2147483647 -- (2^^31 - 1) -- LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded, -- [ISO10646] characters LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to numericoid [Models] LDAPDN ::= LDAPString RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString -- Constrained to attributedescription -- [Models] AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF - AttributeDescription -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 40 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 39 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + AttributeDescription + AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE { attributeDesc AttributeDescription, assertionValue AssertionValue } AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING Attribute ::= SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, @@ -2210,25 +2158,25 @@ aliasDereferencingProblem (36), -- 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 40 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), ... }, @@ -2268,25 +2216,25 @@ 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 41 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + wholeSubtree (2) }, derefAliases ENUMERATED { neverDerefAliases (0), derefInSearching (1), derefFindingBaseObj (2), derefAlways (3) }, sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), timeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), typesOnly BOOLEAN, filter Filter, attributes AttributeDescriptionList } @@ -2326,25 +2274,25 @@ type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE { object LDAPDN, modification SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { - operation ENUMERATED { -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 43 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 42 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + operation ENUMERATED { add (0), delete (1), replace (2) }, modification AttributeTypeAndValues } } AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult @@ -2383,24 +2331,26 @@ 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 Sep 2002 Page 44 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 43 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Appendix C - Change History + C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251: C.1.1 Editorial - Bibliography References: Changed all bibliography references to use a long name form for readability. - Changed occurrences of "unsupportedCriticalExtension" "unavailableCriticalExtension" - Fixed a small number of misspellings (mostly dropped letters). @@ -2437,26 +2387,26 @@ - Generalized the second paragraph to read "If an option specifying the transfer encoding is present in attributeDesc, the AssertionValue is encoded as specified by the option...". Previously, only the ;binary option was mentioned. C.2.3 Sections 4.2, 4.9, 4.10 - Added alias dereferencing specifications. In the case of modDN, followed precedent set on other update operations (... alias is not dereferenced...) In the case of bind and compare stated that - servers SHOULD NOT dereference aliases. Specifications were added - because they were missing from the previous version and caused -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 45 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 44 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + servers SHOULD NOT dereference aliases. Specifications were added + because they were missing from the previous version and caused interoperability problems. Concessions were made for bind and compare (neither should have ever allowed alias dereferencing) by using SHOULD NOT language, due to the behavior of some existing implementations. C.2.4 Sections 4.5 and Appendix A - Changed SubstringFilter.substrings.initial, any, and all from LDAPString to AssertionValue. This was causing an incompatibility with X.500 and confusion among other TS RFCs. @@ -2494,25 +2444,25 @@ by a lower layer" to "the underlying transport service cannot guarantee confidentiality" C.3.6 Section 4.5.2 - Removed all mention of ExtendedResponse due to lack of implementation. C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt: -C.4.1 Section 4 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 46 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 45 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 +C.4.1 Section 4 + - Removed "typically" from "and is typically transferred" in the first paragraph. We know of no (and can conceive of no) case where this isn't true. - Added "Section 5.1 specifies how the LDAP protocol is encoded." To the first paragraph. Added this cross reference for readability. - Changed "version 3 " to "version 3 or later" in the second paragraph. This was added to clarify the original intent. - Changed "protocol version" to "protocol versions" in the third paragraph. This attribute is multi-valued with the intent of holding all supported versions, not just one. @@ -2550,27 +2500,26 @@ controls). C.4.6 Section 4.4 - Changed "One unsolicited notification is defined" to "One unsolicited notification (Notice of Disconnection) is defined" in the third paragraph. For clarity and readability. C.4.7 Section 4.5.1 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 46 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - Changed "checking for the existence of the objectClass attribute" to "checking for the presence of the objectClass attribute" in the last paragraph. This was done as a measure of consistency (we use - -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). C.4.8 Section 4.5.3 - Changed "outstanding search operations to different servers," to "outstanding search operations" in the fifth paragraph as they may be to the same server. This is a point of clarification. C.4.9 Section 4.6 @@ -2606,28 +2555,29 @@ name and an OID (object identifier). The attribute type governs whether there can be more than one value of an attribute of that type in an entry, the syntax to which the values must conform, the kinds of matching which can be performed on values of that attribute, and other functions." to " An attribute is a description (a type and zero or more options) with one or more associated values. The attribute type governs whether the attribute can have multiple values, the syntax and matching rules used to construct and compare values of that attribute, and other functions. Options indicate modes of transfer and other + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 47 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + functions.". This points out that an attribute consists of both the type and options. C.5.2 Section 4 -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." C.5.3 Section 4.1.2 - Added ABNF for the textual representation of LDAPOID. Previously, there was no formal BNF for this construct. C.5.4 Section 4.1.4 @@ -2663,28 +2613,28 @@ - Changed the wording regarding 'equally capable' referrals to "If multiple URLs are present, the client assumes that any URL may be used to progress the operation.". The previous language implied that the server MUST enforce rules that it was practically incapable of. The new language highlights the original intent-- that is, that any of the referrals may be used to progress the operation, there is no inherent 'weighting' mechanism. C.5.7 Section 4.5.1 and Appendix A +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 48 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - Added the comment "-- initial and final can occur at most once", to clarify this restriction. C.5.8 Section 5.1 -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". C.5.9 Section 5.2.1 - Changed "The LDAPMessage PDUs" to "The encoded LDAPMessage PDUs" to point out that the PDUs are encoded before being streamed to TCP. C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt: @@ -2719,27 +2669,27 @@ doc now specifies a difference between transfer and tagging options and describes the semantics of each, and how and when subtyping rules apply. Now allow options to be transmitted in any order but disallow any ordering semantics to be implied. These changes are the result of ongoing input from an engineering team designed to deal with ambiguity issues surrounding attribute options. C.7.3 Sections 4.1.5.1 and 4.1.6 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 49 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - Refer to non "binary" transfer encodings as "native encoding" rather than "string" encoding to clarify and avoid confusion. -C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt: - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 50 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 +C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt: C.8.1 Title - Changed to "LDAP: The Protocol" to be consisted with other working group documents C.8.2 Abstract - Moved above TOC to conform to new guidelines @@ -2775,29 +2725,29 @@ C.8.7 Relationship to X.500 - Removed section. It has been moved to [Roadmap] C.8.8 Server Specific Data Requirements - Removed section. It has been moved to [Models] C.8.9 Elements of Protocol +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 50 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - Added "Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded and transferred." to the end of the first paragraph for reference. - Reworded notes about extensibility, and now talk about implied extensibility and the use of ellipses in the ASN.1 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 51 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - Removed references to LDAPv2 in third and fourth paragraphs. C.8.10 Message ID - Reworded second paragraph to "The message ID of a request MUST have a non-zero value different from the values of any other requests outstanding in the LDAP session of which this message is a part. The zero value is reserved for the unsolicited notification message." (Added notes about non-zero and the zero value). @@ -2832,26 +2782,26 @@ - Clarified intent regarding exactly what is to be BER encoded. - Clarified that clients must not expect ;binary when not asking for it (;binary, as opposed to ber encoded data). C.8.17 Attribute - Use the term "attribute description" in lieu of "type" +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 51 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - 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 @@ -2889,195 +2839,131 @@ - Added as normative appendix A C.8.25 ASN.1 - Added EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED - Added a number of comments holding referenced to [Models] and [ISO10646]. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 52 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - Removed AttributeType. It is not used. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 53 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 +C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt: + + - Removed all mention of transfer encodings and the binary attribute + option + + - Further alignment with [Models]. + + - Added extensibility ellipsis to protocol op choice + + - In 4.1.1, clarified when connections may be dropped due to + malformed PDUs + + - Specified which matching rules and syntaxes are used for various + filter items Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items +D.0 Integrate notational consistency agreements + - WG will discuss notation consistency. Once agreement happens, + reconcile draft. + 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 + - 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. - -D.10 Section 4.1.6 - - - Change "containing an encoded value of an AttributeValue data - type" to "containing an encoded attribute value data type" - -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...) - -D.13 Section 4.1.11 - - - Add "after locating the target entry" to the first paragraph. +D.14 Section 4.1.12 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 54 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 53 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. -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. - -D.17 Section 4.2.2 - - - Add "as the authentication identity" to second paragraph. - 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. - -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. - -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. D.21 Section 4.5.1 - Make sure the use of "subordinates" in the derefInSearching definition is correct. See "derefInSearching" on list. -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 D.5. - 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. -D.24 Section 4.5.3.1 - - - Change examples to use dc naming. - 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. -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. - 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. 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. -D.29 Section 4.12 - - - Change "digitally signed operations and results" to "for instance - StartTLS [RFC2830]" +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 54 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 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. D.31 Section 5.2.1 - Add "using the BER-based described in section 5.1". D.32 Section 6.1 - Add "that are used by those attributes" to the first paragraph. @@ -3099,22 +2985,23 @@ - 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. + - Add notes regarding DoS attack found by CERT advisories. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2002 Page 57 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 55 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any @@ -3131,11 +3018,11 @@ 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2002 Page 56