--- 1/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt 2006-02-05 00:11:57.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-12.txt 2006-02-05 00:11:57.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,14 +1,14 @@ Internet-Draft Editor: J. Sermersheim Intended Category: Standard Track Novell, Inc -Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt Nov 2002 +Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-12.txt Dec 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 @@ -40,24 +40,24 @@ Directory Access Protocol (DAP). Table of Contents 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 - 4.1.2. String Types.................................................5 + 4.1.2. String Types.................................................6 4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name...........6 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 1 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 1 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions.......................................6 4.1.5. Attribute Value..............................................7 4.1.6. Attribute Value Assertion....................................7 4.1.7. Attribute....................................................7 4.1.8. Matching Rule Identifier.....................................8 4.1.9. Result Message...............................................8 4.1.10. Referral...................................................10 4.1.11. Controls...................................................11 @@ -76,47 +76,47 @@ 5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer.........................31 5.1. Protocol Encoding.............................................31 5.2. Transfer Protocols............................................32 6. Implementation Guidelines.......................................32 6.1. Server Implementations........................................32 6.2. Client Implementations........................................32 7. Security Considerations.........................................33 8. Acknowledgements................................................33 9. Normative References............................................33 10. Editor's Address...............................................34 - Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes.....................................35 - A.1 Non-Error Result Codes.........................................35 - A.2 Error Result Codes.............................................35 - A.3 Classes and Precedence of Error Result Codes...................35 - Appendix C - Change History........................................46 - C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:......................................46 - C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:............46 - C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:............47 - C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:............47 - C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:............49 - C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:............51 - C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:............51 - C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:............52 - C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:............55 - C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt:...........55 - C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt:...........55 - C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt:...........55 - Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items................................56 + Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes.....................................36 + A.1 Non-Error Result Codes.........................................36 + A.2 Error Result Codes.............................................36 + A.3 Classes and Precedence of Error Result Codes...................36 + Appendix C - Change History........................................47 + C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:......................................47 + C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:............47 + C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:............48 + C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:............48 + C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:............50 + C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:............52 + C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:............52 + C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:............53 + C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:............56 + C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt:...........56 + C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt:...........56 + C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt:...........56 + C.13 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt:...........57 + Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items................................57 1. Introduction - The Directory is "a collection of open systems cooperating to provide - directory services" [X.500]. A Directory user, which may be a human - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 2 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 2 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + The Directory is "a collection of open systems cooperating to provide + directory services" [X.500]. A Directory user, which may be a human or other entity, accesses the Directory through a client (or Directory User Agent (DUA)). The client, on behalf of the directory user, interacts with one or more servers (or Directory System Agents (DSA)). Clients interact with servers using a directory access protocol. This document details the protocol elements of Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, along with their semantic meanings. Following the description of protocol elements, it describes the way in which the protocol is encoded and transferred. @@ -124,22 +124,22 @@ This document is an integral part of the LDAP Technical Specification [Roadmap]. This document replaces RFC 2251. Appendix C holds a detailed log of changes to RFC 2251. At publication time, this appendix will be distilled to a summary of changes to RFC 2251. 2. Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document - are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are + to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Protocol Model The general model adopted by this protocol is one of clients performing protocol operations against servers. In this model, a client transmits a protocol request describing the operation to be performed to a server. The server is then responsible for performing the necessary operation(s) in the directory. Upon completion of the operation(s), the server returns a response containing any results or errors to the requesting client. @@ -152,26 +152,25 @@ eventually receives a response for every request that requires one. Note that the core protocol operations defined in this document can be mapped to a subset of the X.500(1997) directory abstract service. However there is not a one-to-one mapping between LDAP protocol operations and DAP operations. Server implementations acting as a gateway to X.500 directories may need to make multiple DAP requests. 4. Elements of Protocol - The LDAP protocol is described using Abstract Syntax Notation 1 - (ASN.1) [X.680], and is transferred using a subset of ASN.1 Basic - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 3 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 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 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. @@ -208,26 +207,26 @@ searchResEntry SearchResultEntry, searchResDone SearchResultDone, searchResRef SearchResultReference, modifyRequest ModifyRequest, modifyResponse ModifyResponse, addRequest AddRequest, addResponse AddResponse, delRequest DelRequest, delResponse DelResponse, modDNRequest ModifyDNRequest, - modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse, - compareRequest CompareRequest, -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 4 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 4 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse, + compareRequest CompareRequest, compareResponse CompareResponse, abandonRequest AbandonRequest, extendedReq ExtendedRequest, extendedResp ExtendedResponse, ... }, controls [0] Controls OPTIONAL } MessageID ::= INTEGER (0 .. maxInt) maxInt INTEGER ::= 2147483647 -- (2^^31 - 1) -- @@ -262,32 +261,32 @@ which this message is a part. The zero value is reserved for the unsolicited notification message. Typical clients increment a counter for each request. A client MUST NOT send a request with the same message ID as an earlier request on the same connection unless it can be determined that the server is no longer servicing the earlier request. Otherwise the behavior is undefined. For operations that do not return responses (unbind, abandon, and abandoned operations), the client - SHOULD assumes the operation is in progress until a subsequent bind + SHOULD assume the operation is in progress until a subsequent bind request completes. -4.1.2. String Types - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 5 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 5 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 +4.1.2. String Types + The LDAPString is a notational convenience to indicate that, although strings of LDAPString type encode as OCTET STRING types, the [ISO10646] character set (a superset of Unicode) is used, encoded - following the UTF-8 algorithm [RFC2044]. Note that in the UTF-8 + following the UTF-8 algorithm [RFC2279]. Note that in the UTF-8 algorithm characters which are the same as ASCII (0x0000 through 0x007F) are represented as that same ASCII character in a single byte. The other byte values are used to form a variable-length encoding of an arbitrary character. LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded, -- ISO 10646 characters The LDAPOID is a notational convenience to indicate that the permitted value of this string is a (UTF-8 encoded) dotted-decimal @@ -320,25 +319,24 @@ is an attribute type and zero or more options. AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString -- Constrained to attributedescription -- [Models] An AttributeDescriptionList describes a list of 0 or more attribute descriptions. (A list of zero elements has special significance in the Search request.) - AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 6 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 6 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF AttributeDescription 4.1.5. Attribute Value A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING containing an encoded attribute value data type. The value is encoded according to its LDAP-specific encoding definition. The LDAP-specific encoding definitions for different syntaxes and attribute types may be found in other documents, and in particular [Syntaxes]. @@ -374,26 +372,26 @@ 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. 4.1.7. 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 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 7 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 7 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. @@ -412,44 +410,44 @@ subschema entries, using the matchingRules attributes. The server SHOULD also list there, using the matchingRuleUse attribute, the attribute types with which each matching rule can be used. More information is given in section 4.5 of [Syntaxes]. 4.1.9. Result Message The LDAPResult is the construct used in this protocol to return success or failure indications from servers to clients. To various requests, servers will return responses of LDAPResult or responses - containing the components of LDAPResponse to indicate the final - status of a protocol operation request. + containing the components of LDAPResult to indicate the final status + of a protocol operation request. LDAPResult ::= SEQUENCE { resultCode ENUMERATED { success (0), operationsError (1), protocolError (2), timeLimitExceeded (3), sizeLimitExceeded (4), compareFalse (5), compareTrue (6), authMethodNotSupported (7), strongAuthRequired (8), -- 9 reserved -- referral (10), adminLimitExceeded (11), unavailableCriticalExtension (12), - confidentialityRequired (13), - saslBindInProgress (14), -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 8 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 8 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + confidentialityRequired (13), + saslBindInProgress (14), noSuchAttribute (16), undefinedAttributeType (17), inappropriateMatching (18), constraintViolation (19), attributeOrValueExists (20), invalidAttributeSyntax (21), -- 22-31 unused -- noSuchObject (32), aliasProblem (33), invalidDNSyntax (34), @@ -470,44 +468,46 @@ 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, + diagnosticMessage LDAPString, referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL } The result codes enumeration is extensible as defined in Section 3.5 of [LDAPIANA]. The meanings of the result codes are given in Appendix A. - The 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. + The diagnosticMessage field of this construct may, at the server's + option, be used to return a string containing a textual, human- + readable (terminal control and page formatting characters should be + avoided) diagnostic message. As this diagnostic message is not + standardized, implementations MUST NOT rely on the values returned. + If the server chooses not to return a textual diagnostic, the + diagnosticMessage field of the LDAPResult type MUST contain a zero + length string. - For 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 + For certain result codes (typically, but not restricted to + noSuchObject, aliasProblem, invalidDNSyntax and -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 9 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 9 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + aliasDereferencingProblem), the matchedDN field is set to the name of + the lowest entry (object or alias) in the directory that was matched. + If no aliases were dereferenced while attempting to locate the entry, + this will be a truncated form of the name provided, or if aliases were dereferenced, of the resulting name, as defined in section 12.5 of [X.511]. The matchedDN field contains a zero length string with all other result codes. 4.1.10. Referral The referral result code indicates that the contacted server does not hold the target entry of the request. The referral field is present in an LDAPResult if the LDAPResult.resultCode field value is referral, and absent with all other result codes. It contains one or @@ -541,30 +541,30 @@ progress the operation, and if it is not present the client will use the same name as in the original request. Some servers (e.g. participating in distributed indexing) may provide a different filter in a referral for a search operation. If the filter part of the URL is present in an LDAPURL, the client MUST use this filter in its next 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 10 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 10 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 4.1.11. Controls A control is a way to specify extension information for an LDAP message. A control only alters the semantics of the message it is attached to. Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF Control Control ::= SEQUENCE { controlType LDAPOID, @@ -597,50 +597,50 @@ MUST be prepared to handle arbitrary contents of the controlValue octet string, including zero bytes. It is absent only if there is no value information which is associated with a control of its type. This document does not specify any controls. Controls may be specified in other documents. The specification of a control consists of: - the OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to the control, +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 11 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - whether the control is always noncritical, always critical, or critical at the client's option, - the format of the controlValue contents of the control, - the semantics of the control, -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 11 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - and optionally, semantics regarding the combination of the control with other controls. Servers list the controlType of all controls they recognize in the supportedControl attribute [Models] in the root DSE. Controls should not be combined unless the semantics of the combination has been specified. The semantics of control combinations, if specified, are generally found in the control specification most recently published. In the absence of combination semantics, the behavior of the operation is undefined. Additionally, the order of a combination of controls in the SEQUENCE is ignored unless the control specification(s) describe(s) combination semantics. 4.2. Bind Operation The function of the Bind Operation is to allow authentication information to be exchanged between the client and server. Prior to - the BindRequest, the implied identity is anonymous. Refer to + the first BindRequest, the implied identity is anonymous. Refer to [AuthMeth] for the authentication-related semantics of this operation. The Bind Request is defined as follows: BindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 0] SEQUENCE { version INTEGER (1 .. 127), name LDAPDN, authentication AuthenticationChoice } @@ -653,93 +653,95 @@ 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 12 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 May 2003 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. - The server SHOULD NOT perform any alias dereferencing in - determining the object to bind as. + string) for the purposes of anonymous binds ([AuthMeth] section 7) + or when using SASL authentication ([AuthMeth] section 4.3). Server + behavior is undefined when the name is a null value, simple + authentication is used, and a password is specified. The server + SHOULD NOT perform any alias dereferencing in determining the + object to bind as. - authentication: information used to authenticate the name, if any, provided in the Bind Request. This type is extensible as defined in Section 3.6 of [LDAPIANA]. Servers that do not support a choice supplied by a client will return authMethodNotSupported in the result code of the BindResponse. - Upon receipt of a Bind Request, a protocol server will authenticate - the requesting client, if necessary. The server will then return a - Bind Response to the client indicating the status of the - authentication. - Authorization is the use of this authentication information when performing operations. Authorization MAY be affected by factors - outside of the LDAP Bind request, such as lower layer security + outside of the LDAP Bind Request, such as lower layer security services. -4.2.1. Sequencing of the Bind Request +4.2.1. Processing of the Bind Request + + Upon receipt of a BindRequest, the server MUST ensure there are no + outstanding operations in progress on the connection (This simplifies + server implementation). The server then proceeds to authenticate the + client in either a single-step, or multi-step bind process. Each step + requires the server to return a BindResponse to indicate the status + of authentication. + + If the client did not bind before sending a request and receives an + operationsError, it may then send a Bind Request. If this also fails + or the client chooses not to bind on the existing connection, it may + close the connection, reopen it and begin again by first sending a + PDU with a Bind Request. This will aid in interoperating with servers + implementing other versions of LDAP. + + Clients MAY send multiple Bind Requests on a connection to change + their credentials. Authentication from earlier binds is subsequently + ignored. A failed or abandoned Bind Operation has the effect of + leaving the connection in an anonymous state. To arrive at a known + authentication state after abandoning a bind operation, clients may + unbind, rebind, or make use of the BindResponse. If a SASL transfer + encryption or integrity mechanism has been negotiated, and that + mechanism does not support the changing of credentials from one + identity to another, then the client MUST instead establish a new + connection. For some SASL authentication mechanisms, it may be necessary for the client to invoke the BindRequest multiple times. If at any stage the + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 13 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. + two Bind Requests made as part of a multi-stage bind. A client may abort a SASL bind negotiation by sending a BindRequest with a different value in the mechanism field of SaslCredentials, or an AuthenticationChoice other than sasl. If the client sends a BindRequest with the sasl mechanism field as an empty string, the server MUST return a BindResponse with authMethodNotSupported as the resultCode. This will allow clients to abort a negotiation if it wishes to try again with the same SASL mechanism. - If the client did not bind before sending a request and receives an - operationsError, it may then send a Bind Request. If this also fails - or the client chooses not to bind on the existing connection, it will - close the connection, reopen it and begin again by first sending a - PDU with a Bind Request. This will aid in interoperating with servers - implementing other versions of LDAP. - - Clients MAY send multiple bind requests on a connection to change - their credentials. A subsequent bind process has the effect of - abandoning all operations outstanding on the connection. (This - simplifies server implementation.) Authentication from earlier binds - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 13 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - are subsequently ignored, and so if the bind fails, the connection - will be treated as anonymous. If a SASL transfer encryption or - integrity mechanism has been negotiated, and that mechanism does not - support the changing of credentials from one identity to another, - then the client MUST instead establish a new connection. - 4.2.2. Bind Response The Bind Response is defined as follows. BindResponse ::= [APPLICATION 1] SEQUENCE { COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult, serverSaslCreds [7] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } BindResponse consists simply of an indication from the server of the status of the client's request for authentication. @@ -766,32 +768,32 @@ - inappropriateAuthentication: the server requires the client which had attempted to bind anonymously or without supplying credentials to provide some form of credentials. - invalidCredentials: the wrong password was supplied or the SASL credentials could not be processed. - unavailable: the server is shutting down. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 14 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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.) -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 14 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - The serverSaslCreds are used as part of a SASL-defined bind mechanism to allow the client to authenticate the server to which it is communicating, or to perform "challenge-response" authentication. If the client bound with the simple choice, or the SASL mechanism does not require the server to return information to the client, then this field is not to be included in the result. 4.3. Unbind Operation The function of the Unbind Operation is to terminate a protocol @@ -819,33 +821,33 @@ the messageID is 0 and protocolOp is of the extendedResp form. The responseName field of the ExtendedResponse is present. The LDAPOID value MUST be unique for this notification, and not be used in any other situation. One unsolicited notification (Notice of Disconnection) is defined in this document. 4.4.1. Notice of Disconnection +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 15 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 the directory have succeeded or failed. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 15 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. - strongAuthRequired: The server has detected that an established @@ -874,33 +876,33 @@ SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE { baseObject LDAPDN, scope ENUMERATED { baseObject (0), singleLevel (1), wholeSubtree (2) }, derefAliases ENUMERATED { neverDerefAliases (0), derefInSearching (1), + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 16 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + derefFindingBaseObj (2), derefAlways (3) }, sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), timeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), typesOnly BOOLEAN, filter Filter, attributes AttributeDescriptionList } Filter ::= CHOICE { - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 16 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - and [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter, or [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter, not [2] Filter, equalityMatch [3] AttributeValueAssertion, substrings [4] SubstringFilter, greaterOrEqual [5] AttributeValueAssertion, lessOrEqual [6] AttributeValueAssertion, present [7] AttributeDescription, approxMatch [8] AttributeValueAssertion, extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion } @@ -933,30 +935,30 @@ X.501) are to be handled in searching. The semantics of the possible values of this field are: neverDerefAliases: do not dereference aliases in searching or in locating the base object of the search; derefInSearching: dereference aliases in subordinates of the base object in searching, but not in locating the base object of the search; +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 17 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + derefFindingBaseObj: dereference aliases in locating the base object of the search, but not when searching subordinates of the base object; derefAlways: dereference aliases both in searching and in locating the base object of the search. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 17 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - sizeLimit: A size limit that restricts the maximum number of entries to be returned as a result of the search. A value of 0 in this field indicates that no client-requested size limit restrictions are in effect for the search. Servers may enforce a maximum number of entries to return. - timeLimit: A time limit that restricts the maximum time (in seconds) allowed for a search. A value of 0 in this field indicates that no client-requested time limit restrictions are in effect for the search. @@ -989,30 +991,31 @@ A filter of the "and" choice is TRUE if all the filters in the SET OF evaluate to TRUE, FALSE if at least one filter is FALSE, and otherwise Undefined. A filter of the "or" choice is FALSE if all of the filters in the SET OF evaluate to FALSE, TRUE if at least one filter is TRUE, and Undefined otherwise. A filter of the "not" choice is TRUE if the filter being negated is FALSE, FALSE if it is TRUE, and Undefined if it is Undefined. The present match evaluates to TRUE where there is an attribute or subtype of the specified attribute description present in an + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 18 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 18 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 @@ -1025,50 +1028,50 @@ is absent and matchingRule is present, the matchValue is compared against all attributes in an entry which support that matchingRule, and the matchingRule determines the syntax for the assertion value (the filter item evaluates to TRUE if it matches with at least one attribute in the entry, FALSE if it does not match any attribute in the entry, and Undefined if the matchingRule is not recognized or the assertionValue cannot be parsed.) If the type field is present and matchingRule is present, the matchingRule MUST be one permitted for use with that type, otherwise the filter item is undefined. If the dnAttributes field - is set to TRUE, the match is applied against all the attributes in - an entry's distinguished name as well, and also evaluates to TRUE - if there is at least one attribute in the distinguished name for - which the filter item evaluates to TRUE. (Editors note: The - dnAttributes field is present so that there does not need to be - multiple versions of generic matching rules such as for word - matching, one to apply to entries and another to apply to entries - and dn attributes as well). + is set to TRUE, the match is applied against all the + AttributeValueAssertions in an entry's distinguished name as well, + and also evaluates to TRUE if there is at least one attribute in + the distinguished name for which the filter item evaluates to + TRUE. (Editors note: The dnAttributes field is present so that + there does not need to be multiple versions of generic matching + rules such as for word matching, one to apply to entries and + another to apply to entries and dn attributes as well). A filter item evaluates to Undefined when the server would not be able to determine whether the assertion value matches an entry. If an attribute description in an equalityMatch, substrings, greaterOrEqual, lessOrEqual, approxMatch or extensibleMatch filter is not recognized by the server, a matching rule id in the extensibleMatch is not recognized by the server, the assertion value cannot be parsed, or the type of filtering requested is not implemented, then the filter is Undefined. Thus for example if a server did not recognize the attribute type shoeSize, a filter of (shoeSize=*) would evaluate to FALSE, and the filters (shoeSize=12), (shoeSize>=12) and (shoeSize<=12) would evaluate to Undefined. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 19 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + Servers MUST NOT return errors if attribute descriptions or matching rule ids are not recognized, or assertion values cannot be parsed. More details of filter processing are given in section 7.8 of [X.511]. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 19 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - attributes: A list of the attributes to be returned from each entry which matches the search filter. There are two special values which may be used: an empty list with no attributes, and the attribute description string "*". Both of these signify that all user attributes are to be returned. (The "*" allows the client to request all user attributes in addition to any specified operational attributes). Attributes MUST be named at most once in the list, and are returned at most once in an entry. If there are attribute @@ -1102,30 +1105,29 @@ The results of the search attempted by the server upon receipt of a Search Request are returned in Search Responses, which are LDAP messages containing either SearchResultEntry, SearchResultReference, or SearchResultDone data types. SearchResultEntry ::= [APPLICATION 4] SEQUENCE { objectName LDAPDN, attributes PartialAttributeList } +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 20 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } -- implementors should note that the PartialAttributeList may -- have zero elements (if none of the attributes of that entry -- were requested, or could be returned), and that the vals set - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 20 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - -- may also have zero elements (if types only was requested, or -- all values were excluded from the result.) SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL -- at least one LDAPURL element must be present SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult Upon receipt of a Search Request, a server will perform the necessary search of the DIT. @@ -1137,55 +1139,55 @@ 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. + appropriate attributes as specified in the attributes field of the + Search Request. Return of attributes is subject to access control and + other administrative policy. Some attributes may be constructed by the server and appear in a SearchResultEntry attribute list, although they are not stored attributes of an entry. Clients SHOULD NOT assume that all attributes can be modified, even if permitted by access control. - If the serverĘs schema defines a textual name for an attribute type, + If the server's 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 21 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 21 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - In the absence of indexing information provided to a server from - servers holding subordinate naming contexts, SearchResultReference - responses are not affected by search filters and are always returned - when in scope. + If a server holds a copy or partial copy of the subordinate naming + context, it may use the search filter to determine whether or not to + return a SearchResultReference response. Otherwise + SearchResultReference responses are always returned when in scope. The SearchResultReference is of the same data type as the Referral. URLs for servers implementing the LDAP protocol are written according to [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 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 @@ -1216,28 +1218,29 @@ "OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET". If a subtree search of "DC=Example,DC=NET" is requested to the contacted server, it may return the following: SearchResultEntry for DC=Example,DC=NET SearchResultEntry for CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET SearchResultReference { ldap://hostb/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET ldap://hostc/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET } + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 22 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + SearchResultReference { ldap://hostd/OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET } SearchResultDone (success) -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 22 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Client implementors should note that when following a SearchResultReference, additional SearchResultReference may be generated. Continuing the example, if the client contacted the server (hostb) and issued the search for the subtree "OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET", the server might respond as follows: SearchResultEntry for OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET SearchResultReference { ldap://hoste/OU=Managers,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET } @@ -1271,30 +1274,30 @@ modification AttributeTypeAndValues } } AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } Parameters of the Modify Request are: - object: The object to be modified. The value of this field contains the DN of the entry to be modified. The server will not + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 23 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + perform any alias dereferencing in determining the object to be modified. - modification: A list of modifications to be performed on the entry. The entire list of entry modifications MUST be performed in the order they are listed, as a single atomic operation. While - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 23 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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; @@ -1328,31 +1331,30 @@ performed if the Modify Response indicates successful completion of the Modify Operation. If the connection fails, whether the modification occurred or not is indeterminate. The Modify Operation cannot be used to remove from an entry any of its distinguished values, those values which form the entry's relative distinguished name. An attempt to do so will result in the server returning the error notAllowedOnRDN. The Modify DN Operation described in section 4.9 is used to rename an entry. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 24 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + If an EQUALITY matching rule has not been defined for an attribute type, clients MUST NOT attempt to add or delete individual values of that attribute from an entry using the "add" or "delete" form of a modification, and MUST instead use the "replace" form. Note that due to the simplifications made in LDAP, there is not a direct mapping of the modifications in an LDAP ModifyRequest onto the - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 24 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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: @@ -1386,29 +1388,29 @@ 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 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 25 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 25 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - A response of success indicates that the new entry is present in the directory. 4.8. Delete Operation The Delete Operation allows a client to request the removal of an entry from the directory. The Delete Request is defined as follows: DelRequest ::= [APPLICATION 10] LDAPDN @@ -1424,47 +1426,47 @@ DelResponse ::= [APPLICATION 11] LDAPResult Upon receipt of a Delete Request, a server will attempt to perform the entry removal requested. The result of the delete attempt will be returned to the client in the Delete Response. 4.9. Modify DN Operation The Modify DN Operation allows a client to change the leftmost (least - significant) component of the name of an entry in the directory, or - to move a subtree of entries to a new location in the directory. The - Modify DN Request is defined as follows: + significant) component of the name of an entry in the directory, + and/or to move a subtree of entries to a new location in the + directory. The Modify DN Request is defined as follows: ModifyDNRequest ::= [APPLICATION 12] SEQUENCE { entry LDAPDN, newrdn RelativeLDAPDN, deleteoldrdn BOOLEAN, newSuperior [0] LDAPDN OPTIONAL } Parameters of the Modify DN Request are: - entry: the Distinguished Name of the entry to be changed. This entry may or may not have subordinate entries. Note that the server will not dereference any aliases in locating the entry to be changed. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 26 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - newrdn: the RDN that will form the leftmost component of the new name of the entry. - deleteoldrdn: a boolean parameter that controls whether the old RDN attribute values are to be retained as attributes of the entry, or deleted from the entry. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 26 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - 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 Upon receipt of a ModifyDNRequest, a server will attempt to perform @@ -1497,45 +1499,45 @@ The Compare Operation allows a client to compare an assertion provided with an entry in the directory. The Compare Request is defined as follows: CompareRequest ::= [APPLICATION 14] SEQUENCE { entry LDAPDN, ava AttributeValueAssertion } Parameters of the Compare Request are: +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 27 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - entry: the name of the entry to be compared with. Note that the server SHOULD NOT dereference any aliases in locating the entry to be compared with. - ava: the assertion with which an attribute in the entry is to be compared. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 27 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - The result of the compare attempted by the server upon receipt of a Compare Request is returned in the Compare Response, defined as follows: CompareResponse ::= [APPLICATION 15] LDAPResult Upon receipt of a Compare Request, a server will attempt to perform the requested comparison using the EQUALITY matching rule for the attribute type. The result of the comparison will be returned to the client in the Compare Response. Note that errors and the result of comparison are all returned in the same construct. Note that some directory systems may establish access controls which permit the values of certain attributes (such as userPassword) to be - compared but not read. + compared but not interrogated by other means. 4.11. Abandon Operation The function of the Abandon Operation is to allow a client to request that the server abandon an outstanding operation. The Abandon Request is defined as follows: AbandonRequest ::= [APPLICATION 16] MessageID The MessageID MUST be that of an operation which was requested @@ -1551,31 +1553,32 @@ abandoned by performing a subsequent bind operation. Abandon and Unbind operations cannot be abandoned. The ability to abandon other (particularly update) operations is at the discretion of the server. In the event that a server receives an Abandon Request on a Search Operation in the midst of transmitting responses to the search, that server MUST cease transmitting entry responses to the abandoned request immediately, and MUST NOT send the SearchResponseDone. Of + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 28 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + course, the server MUST ensure that only properly encoded LDAPMessage PDUs are transmitted. Clients MUST NOT send abandon requests for the same operation multiple times, and MUST also be prepared to receive results from operations it has abandoned (since these may have been in transit when the abandon was requested, or are not able to be abandoned). -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 28 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Servers MUST discard abandon requests for message IDs they do not recognize, for operations which cannot be abandoned, and for operations which have already been abandoned. 4.12. Extended Operation An extension mechanism has been added in this version of LDAP, in order to allow additional operations to be defined for services not available elsewhere in this protocol, for instance digitally signed operations and results. @@ -1607,31 +1610,31 @@ protocolError result code. 4.13. Start TLS Operation The Start Transport Layer Security (StartTLS) operation provides the ability to establish Transport Layer Security [RFC2246] on an LDAP connection. 4.13.1. Start TLS Request +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 29 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + A client requests TLS establishment by transmitting a Start TLS request PDU to the server. The Start TLS request is defined in terms of an ExtendedRequest. The requestName is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037", and the requestValue field is absent. The client MUST NOT send any PDUs on this connection following this request until it receives a Start TLS extended response. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 29 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 4.13.2. Start TLS Response When a Start TLS request is made, servers supporting the operation MUST return a Start TLS response PDU to the requestor. The Start TLS response responseName is also "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037", and the response field is absent. The server MUST set the resultCode field to either success or one of the other values outlined in section 4.13.2.2. @@ -1662,85 +1665,86 @@ The server MUST return operationsError if the client violates any of the Start TLS extended operation sequencing requirements described in section 5.3 of [AuthMeth]. If the server does not support TLS (whether by design or by current configuration), it MUST set the resultCode to protocolError, or to referral. The server MUST include an actual referral value in the LDAP Result if it returns a resultCode of referral. The client's current session is unaffected if the server does not support TLS. The + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 30 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + client MAY proceed with any LDAP operation, or it MAY close the connection. The server MUST return unavailable if it supports TLS but cannot establish a TLS connection for some reason, e.g. the certificate server not responding, it cannot contact its TLS implementation, or if the server is in process of shutting down. The client MAY retry - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 30 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - the StartTLS operation, or it MAY proceed with any other LDAP operation, or it MAY close the connection. 4.13.3. Closing a TLS Connection Two forms of TLS connection closure--graceful and abrupt--are supported. 4.13.3.1. Graceful Closure - Either the client or server MAY terminate the TLS connection on an - LDAP association by sending a TLS closure alert. + Either the client or server MAY terminate the TLS connection and + leave the LDAP session intact by sending a TLS closure alert. - Before closing a TLS connection, the client MUST either wait for any - outstanding LDAP operations to complete, or explicitly abandon them. + Before sending a TLS closure alert, the client MUST either wait for + any outstanding LDAP operations to complete, or explicitly abandon + them. After the initiator of a close has sent a TLS closure alert, it MUST discard any TLS messages until it has received a TLS closure alert from the other party. It will cease to send TLS Record Protocol PDUs, and following the receipt of the alert, MAY send and receive LDAP PDUs. The other party, if it receives a TLS closure alert, MUST immediately transmit a TLS closure alert. It will subsequently cease to send TLS Record Protocol PDUs, and MAY send and receive LDAP PDUs. 4.13.3.2. Abrupt Closure - Either the client or server MAY abruptly close the entire LDAP - association and any TLS connection established on it by dropping the - underlying TCP connection. In this circumstance, a server MAY send - the client a Notice of Disconnection before dropping the TCP - connection. + Either the client or server MAY abruptly close the TLS connection by + dropping the underlying transfer protocol connection. In this + circumstance, a server MAY send the client a Notice of Disconnection + before dropping the underlying connection. 5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer One underlying service is defined here. Clients and servers SHOULD implement the mapping of LDAP over TCP described in 5.2.1. 5.1. Protocol Encoding The protocol elements of LDAP are encoded for exchange using the Basic Encoding Rules (BER) [X.690] of ASN.1 [X.680]. However, due to the high overhead involved in using certain elements of the BER, the + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 31 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + following additional restrictions are placed on BER-encodings of LDAP protocol elements: (1) Only the definite form of length encoding will be used. (2) OCTET STRING values will be encoded in the primitive form only. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 31 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - (3) If the value of a BOOLEAN type is true, the encoding MUST have its contents octets set to hex "FF". (4) If a value of a type is its default value, it MUST be absent. Only some BOOLEAN and INTEGER types have default values in this protocol definition. These restrictions do not apply to ASN.1 types encapsulated inside of OCTET STRING values, such as attribute values, unless otherwise noted. @@ -1769,31 +1773,31 @@ The server MUST be capable of recognizing all the mandatory attribute type names and implement the syntaxes specified in [Syntaxes]. Servers MAY also recognize additional attribute type names. 6.2. Client Implementations Clients which request referrals MUST ensure that they do not loop between servers. They MUST NOT repeatedly contact the same server for the same request with the same target entry name, scope and filter. Some clients may be using a counter that is incremented each time + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 32 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + referral handling occurs for an operation, and these kinds of clients MUST be able to handle a DIT with at least ten layers of naming contexts between the root and a leaf entry. In the absence of prior agreements with servers, clients SHOULD NOT assume that servers support any particular schemas beyond those referenced in section 6.1. Different schemas can have different - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 32 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - attribute types with the same names. The client can retrieve the subschema entries referenced by the subschemaSubentry attribute in the server's root DSE or in entries held by the server. 7. Security Considerations When used with a connection-oriented transport, this version of the protocol provides facilities for simple authentication using a cleartext password, as well as any SASL mechanism [RFC2222]. SASL allows for integrity and privacy services to be negotiated. @@ -1824,46 +1828,46 @@ This document is an update to RFC 2251, by Mark Wahl, Tim Howes, and Steve Kille. Their work along with the input of individuals of the IETF LDAPEXT, LDUP, LDAPBIS, and other Working Groups is gratefully acknowledged. 9. Normative References [X.500] ITU-T Rec. X.500, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts, Models and Service", 1993. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 33 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + [Roadmap] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: Technical Specification Road Map", draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt (a work in progress). [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 33 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - [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. - [RFC2044] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode - and ISO 10646", RFC 2044, October 1996. + [RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode + and ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998. [Models] K. Zeilenga, "LDAP: The Models", draft-ietf-ldapbis- models-xx.txt (a work in progress). [LDAPDN] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: String Representation of Distinguished Names", draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-xx.txt, (a work in progress). [Syntaxes] K. Dally (editor), "LDAP: Syntaxes", draft-ietf-ldapbis- syntaxes-xx.txt, (a work in progress). @@ -1880,26 +1884,30 @@ [AuthMeth] R. Harrison (editor), "LDAP: Authentication Methods", draft-ietf-ldapbis-authmeth-xx.txt, (a work in progress). [RFC2222] Meyers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer", RFC 2222, October 1997. 10. Editor's Address Jim Sermersheim Novell, Inc. + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 34 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 1800 South Novell Place Provo, Utah 84606, USA jimse@novell.com +1 801 861-3088 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 34 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 35 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes This normative appendix details additional considerations regarding LDAP result codes and provides a brief, general description of each LDAP result code enumerated in Section 4.1.10. Additional result codes MAY be defined for use with extensions. Client implementations SHALL treat any result code which they do not @@ -1935,36 +1943,36 @@ - a problem related to an update operation, 3) Attribute Errors (codes 16 - 21) - a problem related to a supplied attribute, 4) Security Errors (codes 8, 13, 48 - 50) - a security related problem, 5) Service Problem (codes 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 51 - 54, 80) - a problem related to the provision of the service, and 6) Protocol Problem (codes 1, 2) - a problem related to protocol structure or semantics. - Server implementations SHALL NOT continue processing an operation - after it has determined that an error is to be reported. If the - server detects multiple errors simultaneously, the server SHOULD - report the error with the highest precedence. + 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 May 2003 Page 35 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - success (0) +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 36 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + Indicates successful completion of an operation. This result code is normally not returned by the compare - operation, see compareFalse (5) and compareTrue (6). + operation, see compareFalse (5) and compareTrue (6). It is + possible that a future extension mechanism would allow this + to be returned by a compare operation. operationsError (1) Indicates that the operation is not properly sequenced with relation to other operations (of same or different type). For example, this code is returned if the client attempts to Start TLS [RFC2830] while there are other operations outstanding or if TLS was already established. @@ -1992,21 +2000,21 @@ 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 May 2003 Page 36 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 37 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) @@ -2019,43 +2027,43 @@ 4.4.1), this indicates that the server requires the client to authentication using a strong(er) mechanism. referral (10) Indicates that a referral needs to be chased to complete the operation (see section 4.1.11). adminLimitExceeded (11) - Indicates that an admnistrative limit has been exceeded. + Indicates that an administrative limit has been exceeded. unavailableCriticalExtension (12) Indicates that server cannot perform a critical extension (see section 4.1.12). confidentialityRequired (13) Indicates that data confidentiality protections are required. saslBindInProgress (14) Indicates the server requires the client to send a new bind - request, with the same sasl mechanism, to continue the + 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 May 2003 Page 37 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 38 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 @@ -2080,36 +2088,39 @@ Indicates that a purported attribute value does not conform to the syntax of the attribute. noSuchObject (32) Indicates that the object does not exist in the DIT. aliasProblem (33) - Indicates that an alias problem has occurred. + Indicates that an alias problem has occurred. Typically an + alias has been dereferenced which names no object. invalidDNSyntax (34) Indicates that a LDAPDN or RelativeLDAPDN field (e.g. search base, target entry, ModifyDN newrdn, etc.) of a request does not conform to the required syntax or contains attribute values which do not conform to the syntax of the attribute's type. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 38 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 39 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 aliasDereferencingProblem (36) - Indicates that a problem in dereferencing an alias. + Indicates that a problem occurred while dereferencing an + alias. Typically an alias was encountered in a situation + where it was not allowed or where access was denied. inappropriateAuthentication (48) Indicates the server requires the client which had attempted to bind anonymously or without supplying credentials to provide some form of credentials, invalidCredentials (49) Indicates the supplied credentials are invalid. @@ -2136,25 +2147,25 @@ loopDetect (54) Indicates that the server has detected an internal loop. namingViolation (64) Indicates that the entry name violates naming restrictions. objectClassViolation (65) - Indicates that the entry violates object class restrictions. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 39 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 40 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + Indicates that the entry violates object class restrictions. + notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66) Indicates that operation is inappropriately acting upon a non-leaf entry. notAllowedOnRDN (67) Indicates that the operation is inappropriately attempting to remove a value which forms the entry's relative distinguished name. @@ -2174,21 +2185,21 @@ 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 May 2003 Page 40 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 41 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Appendix B - Complete ASN.1 Definition This appendix is normative. Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol-V3 DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED ::= @@ -2232,21 +2243,21 @@ LDAPDN ::= LDAPString RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString -- Constrained to attributedescription -- [Models] AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 41 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 42 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 AttributeDescription AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE { attributeDesc AttributeDescription, assertionValue AssertionValue } @@ -2290,37 +2301,37 @@ -- 37-47 unused -- inappropriateAuthentication (48), invalidCredentials (49), insufficientAccessRights (50), busy (51), unavailable (52), unwillingToPerform (53), loopDetect (54), -- 55-63 unused -- -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 42 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 43 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 namingViolation (64), objectClassViolation (65), notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66), notAllowedOnRDN (67), entryAlreadyExists (68), objectClassModsProhibited (69), -- 70 reserved for CLDAP -- affectsMultipleDSAs (71), -- 72-79 unused -- other (80), ... }, -- 81-90 reserved for APIs -- matchedDN LDAPDN, - errorMessage LDAPString, + diagnosticMessage LDAPString, referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL } Referral ::= SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL LDAPURL ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in -- URLs Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF Control Control ::= SEQUENCE { @@ -2348,21 +2359,21 @@ serverSaslCreds [7] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } UnbindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 2] NULL SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE { baseObject LDAPDN, scope ENUMERATED { baseObject (0), singleLevel (1), -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 43 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 44 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 wholeSubtree (2) }, derefAliases ENUMERATED { neverDerefAliases (0), derefInSearching (1), derefFindingBaseObj (2), derefAlways (3) }, sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), timeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), @@ -2406,21 +2417,21 @@ vals SET OF AttributeValue } SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE { object LDAPDN, modification SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 44 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 45 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 operation ENUMERATED { add (0), delete (1), replace (2) }, modification AttributeTypeAndValues } } AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, @@ -2462,21 +2473,21 @@ 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 May 2003 Page 45 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 46 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Appendix C - Change History C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251: C.1.1 Editorial @@ -2519,21 +2530,21 @@ the transfer encoding is present in attributeDesc, the AssertionValue is encoded as specified by the option...". Previously, only the ;binary option was mentioned. C.2.3 Sections 4.2, 4.9, 4.10 - Added alias dereferencing specifications. In the case of modDN, followed precedent set on other update operations (... alias is not dereferenced...) In the case of bind and compare stated that -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 46 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 47 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 servers SHOULD NOT dereference aliases. Specifications were added because they were missing from the previous version and caused interoperability problems. Concessions were made for bind and compare (neither should have ever allowed alias dereferencing) by using SHOULD NOT language, due to the behavior of some existing implementations. C.2.4 Sections 4.5 and Appendix A @@ -2575,21 +2586,21 @@ by a lower layer" to "the underlying transport service cannot guarantee confidentiality" C.3.6 Section 4.5.2 - Removed all mention of ExtendedResponse due to lack of implementation. C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt: -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 47 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 48 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 C.4.1 Section 4 - Removed "typically" from "and is typically transferred" in the first paragraph. We know of no (and can conceive of no) case where this isn't true. - Added "Section 5.1 specifies how the LDAP protocol is encoded." To the first paragraph. Added this cross reference for readability. - Changed "version 3 " to "version 3 or later" in the second @@ -2631,21 +2642,21 @@ 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 May 2003 Page 48 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 49 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Changed "checking for the existence of the objectClass attribute" to "checking for the presence of the objectClass attribute" in the last paragraph. This was done as a measure of consistency (we use the terms present and presence rather than exists and existence in search filters). C.4.8 Section 4.5.3 @@ -2687,21 +2698,21 @@ 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 May 2003 Page 49 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 50 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 functions.". This points out that an attribute consists of both the type and options. C.5.2 Section 4 - Changed "Section 5.1 specifies the encoding rules for the LDAP protocol" to "Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded and transferred." @@ -2744,21 +2755,21 @@ - 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 May 2003 Page 50 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 51 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Added the comment "-- initial and final can occur at most once", to clarify this restriction. C.5.8 Section 5.1 - Changed heading from "Mapping Onto BER-based Transport Services" to "Protocol Encoding". @@ -2800,21 +2811,21 @@ 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 May 2003 Page 51 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 52 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Refer to non "binary" transfer encodings as "native encoding" rather than "string" encoding to clarify and avoid confusion. C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt: C.8.1 Title - Changed to "LDAP: The Protocol" to be consisted with other working @@ -2856,21 +2867,21 @@ 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 May 2003 Page 52 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 53 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Added "Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded and transferred." to the end of the first paragraph for reference. - Reworded notes about extensibility, and now talk about implied extensibility and the use of ellipses in the ASN.1 - Removed references to LDAPv2 in third and fourth paragraphs. @@ -2913,21 +2924,21 @@ - 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 May 2003 Page 53 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 54 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Clarified the fact that clients cannot rely on any apparent ordering of attribute values. C.8.18 LDAPResult - To resultCode, added ellipses "..." to the enumeration to indicate extensibility. and added a note, pointing to [LDAPIANA] @@ -2970,21 +2981,21 @@ - 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 May 2003 Page 54 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 55 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Removed AttributeType. It is not used. C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt: - Removed all mention of transfer encodings and the binary attribute option - Further alignment with [Models]. @@ -2995,21 +3006,21 @@ malformed PDUs - Specified which matching rules and syntaxes are used for various filter items C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt: C.10.1 Section 4.1.1.1: - Clarified when it is and isn't appropriate to return an already - used result code. + used message id. C.10.2 Section 4.1.11: - Clarified that a control only applies to the message it's attached to. - Explained that the criticality field is only applicable to certain request messages. - Added language regarding the combination of controls. @@ -3023,137 +3034,179 @@ C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt: - Fixed formatting C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt: C.12.1 Section 4.1.4: - Removed second paragraph as this language exists in MODELS -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 55 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 56 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 C.12.2 Section 4.2.1: - Replaced fourth paragraph. It was accidentally removed in an earlier edit. C.12.2 Section 4.13: - Added section describing the StartTLS operation (moved from authmeth) +C.13 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt: + +C.13.1 Section 4.1.9 + + - Changed "errorMessage" to "diagnosticMessage". Simply to indicate + that the field may be non-empty even if a non-error resultCode is + present. + +C.13.2 Section 4.2: + + - Reconciled language in "name" definition with [AuthMeth] + +C.13.3 Section 4.2.1 + + - Renamed to "Processing of the Bind Request", and moved some text + from 4.2 into this section. + + - Rearranged paragraphs to flow better. + + - Specified that (as well as failed) an abandoned bind operation + will leave the connection in an anonymous state. + +C.13.4 Section 4.5.3 + + - Generalized the second paragraph which cited indexing and + searchreferralreferences. + Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items -D.0 Integrate notational consistency agreements - - WG will discuss notation consistency. Once agreement happens, - reconcile draft. +D.0 General + - Integrate notational consistency agreements WG will discuss + notation consistency. Once agreement happens, reconcile draft. -D.1 Integrate result codes draft. + - Reconcile problems with [Models]. Section 3.2 was wholly removed. + There were some protocol semantics in that section that need to be + brought back. Specifically, there was the notion of the server + implicitly adding objectclass superclasses when a value is added. - - 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.1 Make result code usage consistent. + + - While there is a result code appendix, ensure it speaks of result + codes in a general sense, and only highlight specific result codes + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 57 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + in the context of an operation when that operation ties more + specific meanings to that result code. D.2 Verify references. - Many referenced documents have changed. Ensure references and section numbers are correct. D.3 Usage of Naming Context - Make sure occurrences of "namingcontext" and "naming context" are - consistent with [Models]. + consistent with [Models]. Use in section 6.2 should be reworked. + It's layers of indirection that matter, not number of contexts. + (That is, referrals can be returned for a number of reasons (cross + reference, superior, subordinate, busy, not master, etc.) -D.14 Section 4.1.12 + Other uses are fine. - - Specify whether or not servers are to advertise the OIDs of known - response controls. +D.4 Review 2119 usage + +D.5 Reconcile with I-D Nits D.18 Section 4.2.3 - Change "operationsError" to "other" as a bind result code. - -D.21 Section 4.5.1 - - - Make sure the use of "subordinates" in the derefInSearching - definition is correct. See "derefInSearching" on list. + Proposal is to remove it since it's a general error anyway. D.23 Section 4.5.3 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 56 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - A server MUST NOT return any SearchResultReference if it has not + located the baseObject and thus has not searched any entries; in + this case it would return a SearchResultDone containing a referral + resultCode. - Add "Similarly, a server MUST NOT return a SearchResultReference when the scope of the search is baseObject. If a client receives such a SearchResultReference it MUST interpret is as a protocol error and MUST NOT follow it." to the first paragraph. + The technical specification doesn't have to describe how a + protocol peer should react when its partner violates an absolute. + + OR return noSuchObject. - Add "If the scope part of the LDAP URL is present, the client MUST use the new scope in its next request to progress the search. If the scope part is absent the client MUST use subtree scope to complete subtree searches and base scope to complete one level searches." to the third paragraph. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 58 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. + exist". See "modify: "non-existent attribute"" on the list. Not + sure if there's really an issue here. Will look at archive D.27 Section 4.10 - Specify what happens when the attr is missing vs. attr isn't in schema. Also what happens if there's no equality matching rule. + noSuchAttribute, undefinedAttributeType, inappropriateMatching D.30 Section 5.1 - Add "control and extended operation values" to last paragraph. See "LBER (BER Restrictions)" on list. D.32 Section 6.1 - Add "that are used by those attributes" to the first paragraph. - Add "Servers which support update operations MUST, and other servers SHOULD, support strong authentication mechanisms described - in [RFC2829]." as a second paragraph. + in [RFC2829]." as a second paragraph. Likely should just say + Requirements of authentication methods, SASL mechanisms, and TLS + are described in [AUTHMETH]." (also apply to next two below) - Add "Servers which provide access to sensitive information MUST, and other servers SHOULD support privacy protections such as those described in [RFC2829] and [RFC2830]." as a third paragraph. D.33 Section 7 - Add "Servers which support update operations MUST, and other servers SHOULD, support strong authentication mechanisms described in [RFC2829]." as a fourth paragraph. - Add "In order to automatically follow referrals, clients may need to hold authentication secrets. This poses significant privacy and security concerns and SHOULD be avoided." as a sixth paragraph. - - Add "This document provides a mechanism which clients may use to - discover operational attributes. Those relying on security by - obscurity should implement appropriate access controls to - restricts access to operational attributes per local policy." as - an eighth paragraph. - - Add "This document provides a mechanism which clients may use to - discover operational attributes. Those relying on security by - obscurity should implement appropriate access controls to - restricts access to operational attributes per local policy." as - an eighth paragraph. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 57 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + There are concerns with "automatic" chasing regardless of which, + if any, authentication method/mechanism is used. - Add notes regarding DoS attack found by CERT advisories. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires May 2003 Page 58 +D.34 Appendix C + + - C.9. Explain why we removed ;binary, and what clients can do to + get around potential problems (likely refer to an I-D) + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 59 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 @@ -3170,11 +3223,11 @@ 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 May 2003 Page 59 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Jun 2003 Page 60