--- 1/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-16.txt 2006-02-05 00:12:07.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-17.txt 2006-02-05 00:12:07.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,14 +1,14 @@ Internet-Draft Editor: J. Sermersheim Intended Category: Standard Track Novell, Inc -Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-16.txt Jun 2003 +Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-17.txt Sep 2003 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 @@ -43,80 +43,83 @@ 1. Introduction....................................................3 2. Conventions.....................................................3 3. Protocol Model..................................................3 4. Elements of Protocol............................................4 4.1. Common Elements...............................................4 4.1.1. Message Envelope............................................4 4.1.2. String Types................................................6 4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name..........6 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 1 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 1 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions......................................6 + 4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions......................................7 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 4.3. Unbind Operation.............................................15 4.4. Unsolicited Notification.....................................15 4.5. Search Operation.............................................16 - 4.6. Modify Operation.............................................23 + 4.6. Modify Operation.............................................24 4.7. Add Operation................................................25 - 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..........................................29 - 4.13. Start TLS Operation.........................................30 - 5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer........................32 - 5.1. Protocol Encoding............................................32 - 5.2. Transfer Protocols...........................................32 + 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..........................................30 + 4.13. Start TLS Operation.........................................31 + 5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer........................33 + 5.1. Protocol Encoding............................................33 + 5.2. Transfer Protocols...........................................33 6. Implementation Guidelines......................................33 - 6.1. Server Implementations.......................................33 - 6.2. Client Implementations.......................................33 - 7. Security Considerations........................................33 - 8. Acknowledgements...............................................34 - 9. Normative References...........................................34 - 10. Informative References........................................36 - 11. Editor's Address..............................................36 - Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes....................................37 - A.1 Non-Error Result Codes........................................37 - A.2 Result Codes..................................................37 - Appendix C - Change History.......................................48 - C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:.....................................48 - C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:...........48 - C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:...........49 - C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:...........49 - C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:...........51 - C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:...........53 - C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:...........53 - C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:...........54 - C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:...........57 - C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt:..........57 - C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt:..........57 - C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt:..........57 - C.13 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt:..........58 - C.14 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-12.txt:..........58 - C.15 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-13.txt...........58 - C.16 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-14.txt...........59 - C.17 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-15.txt...........61 - Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items...............................61 + 6.1. Server Implementations.......................................34 + 6.2. Client Implementations.......................................34 + 7. Security Considerations........................................34 + 8. Acknowledgements...............................................35 + 9. Normative References...........................................35 + 10. Informative References........................................37 + 11. IANA Considerations...........................................37 + 12. Editor's Address..............................................37 + Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes....................................38 + A.1 Non-Error Result Codes........................................38 + A.2 Result Codes..................................................38 + Appendix C - Change History.......................................49 + C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:.....................................49 + C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:...........49 + C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:...........50 + C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:...........50 + C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:...........52 + C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:...........54 + C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:...........54 + C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:...........55 + C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:...........58 + C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt:..........58 + C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt:..........58 + C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt:..........58 + C.13 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt:..........59 + C.14 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-12.txt:..........59 + C.15 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-13.txt...........59 + C.16 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-14.txt...........60 + C.17 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-15.txt...........62 + C.18 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-16.txt...........62 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 2 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 2 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items...............................63 + 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 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. @@ -151,45 +154,47 @@ 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 an appropriate result code to the requesting client. 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 3 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 3 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + between a client and server in any order, provided the client + eventually receives a response for every request that requires one. + 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 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. + implied extensibility, clients and servers MUST (unless otherwise + specified) ignore trailing SEQUENCE elements whose tags they do not + recognize. Changes to the LDAP protocol other than through the extension mechanisms described here 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 MUST provide @@ -204,28 +209,28 @@ 4.1.1. Message Envelope For the purposes of protocol exchanges, all protocol operations are encapsulated in a common envelope, the LDAPMessage, which is defined as follows: LDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE { messageID MessageID, protocolOp CHOICE { bindRequest BindRequest, + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 4 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + bindResponse BindResponse, unbindRequest UnbindRequest, searchRequest SearchRequest, searchResEntry SearchResultEntry, - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 4 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - searchResDone SearchResultDone, searchResRef SearchResultReference, modifyRequest ModifyRequest, modifyResponse ModifyResponse, addRequest AddRequest, addResponse AddResponse, delRequest DelRequest, delResponse DelResponse, modDNRequest ModifyDNRequest, modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse, @@ -261,28 +266,29 @@ 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 association + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 5 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + of which this message is a part. The zero value is reserved for the unsolicited notification message. Typical clients increment a counter for each request. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 5 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - A client MUST NOT send a request with the same message ID as an earlier request on the same LDAP association 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 assume the operation is in progress until a subsequent bind request completes. 4.1.2. String Types @@ -315,40 +321,33 @@ 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] -4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 6 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 6 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 +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] - 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 - 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]. AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING @@ -372,30 +371,29 @@ and a matching rule assertion value suitable for that type. AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE { attributeDesc AttributeDescription, assertionValue AssertionValue } AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING The syntax of the AssertionValue depends on the context of the LDAP operation being performed. For example, the syntax of the EQUALITY - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 7 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 7 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 { @@ -427,29 +425,29 @@ resultCode ENUMERATED { success (0), operationsError (1), protocolError (2), timeLimitExceeded (3), sizeLimitExceeded (4), compareFalse (5), compareTrue (6), authMethodNotSupported (7), strongAuthRequired (8), - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 8 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - -- 9 reserved -- referral (10), adminLimitExceeded (11), unavailableCriticalExtension (12), confidentialityRequired (13), + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 8 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + saslBindInProgress (14), noSuchAttribute (16), undefinedAttributeType (17), inappropriateMatching (18), constraintViolation (19), attributeOrValueExists (20), invalidAttributeSyntax (21), -- 22-31 unused -- noSuchObject (32), aliasProblem (33), @@ -485,28 +483,27 @@ [LDAPIANA]. The meanings of the result codes are given in Appendix A. If a server detects multiple errors for an operation, only one result code is returned. The server should return the result code that best indicates the nature of the error encountered. 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. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 9 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - If the server chooses not to return a textual diagnostic, the diagnosticMessage field of the LDAPResult type MUST contain a zero length string. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 9 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + For certain result codes (typically, but not restricted to 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]. Unless otherwise defined, the matchedDN field contains a zero length string with all other result codes. @@ -531,44 +528,50 @@ Referral ::= SEQUENCE OF URL -- one or more URL ::= 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 LDAP and accessible via [TCP]/[IP] (v4 - or v6) are written according to [LDAPURL]. If an alias was - dereferenced, the part of the URL MUST be present, with the new - target object name. If the part is present, the client MUST use - this name in its next request to progress the operation, and if it is - not present the client will use the same name as in the original - request. Some servers (e.g. participating in distributed indexing) - may provide a different filter in a referral for a search operation. - If the filter part of the LDAP URL is present, 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 + A URL for a server implementing LDAP and accessible via [TCP]/[IP] + (v4 or v6) is written as an LDAP URL according to [LDAPURL]. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 10 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + When an LDAP URL is used, the following instructions are followed: + - If an alias was dereferenced, the part of the URL MUST be + present, with the new target object name. 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]. + - 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. - search. Other aspects of the new request may be the same or different - as the request which generated the referral. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 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]. + - Some servers (e.g. participating in distributed indexing) may + provide a different filter in a URL of a referral for a search + operation. + - If the filter part of the LDAP URL is present, 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. Other kinds of URLs may be returned, so long as the operation could - be performed using that protocol. + be performed using that protocol. The definition of such URLs and + instructions on their use is left to future specifications. 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 { @@ -594,28 +597,29 @@ server MUST NOT perform the operation, and MUST instead set the resultCode to 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. Its format is defined by the specification of the control. Implementations MUST be prepared to handle arbitrary contents of the controlValue octet string, including zero bytes. It is absent only if + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 11 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + there is no value information which is associated with a control of its type. controlValues that are defined in terms of ASN.1 and BER encoded according to Section 5.1, also follow the extensibility rules in Section 4. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 11 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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, - whether the control is always noncritical, always critical, or critical at the client's option, - the format of the controlValue contents of the control, @@ -651,27 +655,27 @@ version INTEGER (1 .. 127), name LDAPDN, authentication AuthenticationChoice } AuthenticationChoice ::= CHOICE { simple [0] OCTET STRING, -- 1 and 2 reserved sasl [3] SaslCredentials, ... } +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 12 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + SaslCredentials ::= SEQUENCE { mechanism LDAPString, credentials OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 12 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Parameters of the Bind Request are: - version: A version number indicating the version of the protocol to be used in this protocol association. 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 MUST respond with protocolError in the resultCode field of the BindResponse. @@ -706,34 +710,32 @@ Upon receipt of a BindRequest, the server MUST ensure there are no outstanding operations in progress on the connection (this simplifies server implementation). To do this, the server may cause them to be abandoned or allow them to finish. 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 13 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 13 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 LDAP association 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. + ignored. For some SASL authentication mechanisms, it may be necessary for the client to invoke the BindRequest multiple times. This is indicated by the server sending a BindResponse with the resultCode set to saslBindInProgress. This indicates that the server requires the client to send a new bind request, with the same sasl mechanism, to continue the authentication process. 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. @@ -741,50 +743,61 @@ 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. + A failed Bind Operation has the effect of leaving the connection in + an anonymous state. An abandoned Bind operation also has the effect + of leaving the connection in an anonymous state when (and if) the + server processes the abandonment of the bind. Client implementers + should note that the client has no way of being sure when (or if) an + abandon request succeeds, therefore, to arrive at a known + authentication state after abandoning a bind operation, clients may + either unbind (which results in the underlying connection being + closed) or by issuing a bind request and then examining the + BindResponse returned by the server. + 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. A successful bind operation is indicated by a BindResponse with a resultCode set to success. Otherwise, an appropriate result code is set in the BindResponse. For bind, the protocolError result code may + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 14 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + be used to indicate that the version number supplied by the client is unsupported. If the client receives a BindResponse response where the resultCode field is 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 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 14 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 BindResponse. 4.3. Unbind Operation The function of the Unbind Operation is to terminate an LDAP association and connection. The Unbind Operation is defined as follows: @@ -810,44 +823,44 @@ 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 Mar 2004 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 Dec 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 result codes have these meanings when 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 establish + - strongAuthRequired: The server has detected that an established security association between the client and server has unexpectedly failed or been compromised, or that the server now requires the client to authenticate using a strong(er) mechanism. - 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. @@ -865,32 +878,37 @@ The Search Request is defined as follows: SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE { baseObject LDAPDN, scope ENUMERATED { baseObject (0), singleLevel (1), wholeSubtree (2) }, derefAliases ENUMERATED { + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 16 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + neverDerefAliases (0), derefInSearching (1), derefFindingBaseObj (2), derefAlways (3) }, sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), timeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt), typesOnly BOOLEAN, filter Filter, - attributes AttributeDescriptionList } + attributes AttributeSelection } -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 16 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + AttributeSelection ::= SEQUENCE OF + LDAPString + -- constrained to the attributeSelection below 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, @@ -918,35 +936,35 @@ which the search is to be performed. - scope: An indicator of the scope of the search to be performed. The semantics of the possible values of this field are identical to the semantics of the scope field in the X.511 Search Operation. - derefAliases: An indicator as to how alias objects (as defined in [X.501]) are to be handled in searching. The semantics of the possible values of this field are: +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 17 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + neverDerefAliases: Do not dereference aliases in searching or in locating the base object of the search. derefInSearching: While searching, dereference any alias object subordinate to the base object which is also in the search scope. The filter is applied to the dereferenced object(s). If the search scope is wholeSubtree, the search continues in the subtree of any dereferenced object. Aliases in that subtree are also dereferenced. Servers SHOULD detect looping in this process to prevent denial of service attacks and duplicate entries. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 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. - 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 @@ -975,44 +993,50 @@ (Implementor's note: the 'not' filter is an example of a tagged choice in an implicitly-tagged module. In BER this is treated as if the tag was explicit.) A server MUST evaluate filters according to the three-valued logic of X.511 (1993) section 7.8.1. In summary, a filter is evaluated to either "TRUE", "FALSE" or "Undefined". If the filter evaluates to TRUE for a particular entry, then the attributes of that entry are returned as part of the search result (subject to any applicable access control restrictions). If the filter evaluates + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 18 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 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 Dec 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 for equalityMatch filter items is defined by the EQUALITY matching rule for the attribute type. The matching rule for AssertionValues in a substrings filter item is defined by the SUBSTR matching rule for the attribute type. + Note that the AssertionValue in a substrings filter item MUST + conform to the assertion syntax of the EQUALITY matching rule for + the attribute type rather than the assertion syntax of the SUBSTR + matching rule for the attribute type. The entire SubstringFilter + is converted into an assertion value of the substrings matching + rule prior to applying the rule. The matching rule for greaterOrEqual and lessOrEqual filter items is defined by the ORDERING matching rule for the attribute type. The matching semantics for approxMatch filter items is implementation-defined. If approximate matching is not supported by the server, the filter item should be treated as an equalityMatch. The extensibleMatch is new in this version of LDAP. If the @@ -1027,65 +1051,82 @@ 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 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 19 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. Servers MUST NOT return errors if attribute descriptions or matching rule ids are not recognized, or assertion values cannot - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 19 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - be parsed. More details of filter processing are given in section 7.8 of [X.511]. - attributes: A list of the attributes to be returned from each - entry which matches the search filter. There are two special - values which may be used: an empty list with no attributes, and - the attribute description string "*". Both of these signify that - all user attributes are to be returned. (The "*" allows the client - to request all user attributes in addition to any specified - operational attributes). + entry which matches the search filter. LDAPString values of this + field are constrained to the following ABNF: + + attributeSelection = noattrs / + *( attributedescription / specialattr ) + + noattrs = %x31 %x2E %x31 ; "1.1" + + attributedescription = ; attributedescription from 2.5 of [Models] + + specialattr = ASTERISK + + ASTERISK = %x2A ; asterisk ("*") + + 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 descriptions in the list which are not recognized, they are ignored by the server. If the client does not want any attributes returned, it can specify a list containing only the attribute with OID "1.1". This OID was chosen arbitrarily and does not correspond to any attribute in use. Client implementors should note that even if all user attributes are requested, some attributes of the entry may not be included in + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 20 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + search results due to access controls or other restrictions. Furthermore, servers will not return operational attributes, such as objectClasses or attributeTypes, unless they are listed by name, since there may be extremely large number of values for certain operational attributes. (A list of operational attributes for use in LDAP is given in [Syntaxes].) Note that an X.500 "list"-like operation can be emulated by the client requesting a one-level LDAP search operation with a filter checking for the presence of the objectClass attribute, and that an @@ -1102,24 +1143,20 @@ messages containing SearchResultEntry, SearchResultReference, or SearchResultDone data types. SearchResultEntry ::= [APPLICATION 4] SEQUENCE { objectName LDAPDN, attributes PartialAttributeList } PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 20 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - -- 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 -- may also have zero elements (if types only was requested, or -- all values were excluded from the result.) SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF URL -- at least one URL element must be present SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult @@ -1129,20 +1166,24 @@ 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 + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 21 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + SearchResultDone, which contains an indication of success, or detailing any errors that have occurred. Each entry returned in a SearchResultEntry will contain all 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 @@ -1159,51 +1200,60 @@ SHOULD return the ldapOID form of the 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 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 21 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - thus has not searched any entries; in this case it would return a SearchResultDone containing a referral result code. 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 LDAP and accessible via [TCP]/[IP] (v4 - or v6) are written according to [LDAPURL]. 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 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. + A URL for a server implementing LDAP and accessible via [TCP]/[IP] + (v4 or v6) is written as an LDAP URL according to [LDAPURL]. - The name of an unexplored subtree in a SearchResultReference need not - be subordinate to the base object. + When an LDAP URL is used, the following instructions are followed: + - The part of the URL MUST be present, with the new target + object name. The client MUST use this name when following 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]. + - Some servers (e.g. participating in distributed indexing) may + provide a different filter in a URL of a SearchResultReference. + - If the filter part of the URL is present, the client MUST use + this filter in its next request to progress this search, and if + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 22 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + it is not present the client MUST use the same filter as it used + for that search. + - 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 request which generated the + SearchResultReference. + - The name of an unexplored subtree in a SearchResultReference + need not be subordinate to the base object. + + Other kinds of URLs may be returned, so long as the operation could + be performed using that protocol. The definition of such URLs and + instructions on their use is left to future specifications. 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 an association 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 @@ -1216,100 +1266,102 @@ "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 } SearchResultReference { ldap://hostd/OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET } - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 22 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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,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 } SearchResultReference { ldap://hostf/OU=Consultants,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET } SearchResultDone (success) +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 23 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 "DC=Example,DC=ORG" to hosta, the server may return only a SearchResultDone containing a referral. SearchResultDone (referral) { ldap://hostg/DC=Example,DC=ORG??sub } 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: ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE { object LDAPDN, - modification SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { + changes SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { operation ENUMERATED { add (0), delete (1), replace (2) }, - modification AttributeTypeAndValues } } - - AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE { - type AttributeDescription, - vals SET OF AttributeValue } + modification Attribute } } 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 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 - individual modifications may violate the directory schema, the - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 23 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - + - changes: A list of modifications to be performed on the entry. The + entire list of modifications MUST be performed in the order they + are listed, as a single atomic operation. While individual + modifications may violate certain aspects of the directory schema + (such as the object class definition and DIT content rule), 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: + schema. - add: add values listed to the given attribute, creating the - attribute if necessary; + - operation: Used to specify the type of modification being + performed. Each operation type acts on the following + modification. The values of this field have the following + semantics respectively: - 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; + add: add values listed to the modification attribute, + creating the attribute if necessary; - 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. + delete: delete values listed from the modification + attribute, removing the entire attribute if no values are + listed, or if all current values of the attribute are + listed for deletion; + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 24 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + replace: replace all existing values of the modification + 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. + + - modification: An Attribute (which may have an empty SET of vals) + used to hold the Attribute Type or Attribute Type and values + being modified. The result of the modification attempted by the server upon receipt of a Modify Request is returned in a Modify Response, defined as follows: ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult Upon receipt of a Modify Request, a server will perform the necessary modifications to the DIT. @@ -1324,39 +1376,40 @@ the Modify Operation. If the association changes or 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 notAllowedOnRDN result code. The Modify DN Operation described in section 4.9 is used to rename an entry. Note that due to the simplifications made in LDAP, there is not a - direct mapping of the modifications in an LDAP ModifyRequest onto the - EntryModifications of a DAP ModifyEntry operation, and different - implementations of LDAP-DAP gateways may use different means of - representing the change. If successful, the final effect of the - operations on the entry MUST be identical. - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 24 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + direct mapping of the changes in an LDAP ModifyRequest onto the + changes 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, attributes AttributeList } AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 25 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 to be added. - attributes: the list of attributes that make up the content of the @@ -1386,34 +1439,34 @@ requested entry. 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 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 25 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 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 leaf entries (those with no subordinate entries) can be deleted with this operation. +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 26 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 the entry removal requested. The result of the delete attempt will be returned to the client in the Delete Response. @@ -1441,33 +1494,33 @@ 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. - newSuperior: if present, this is the Distinguished Name of an existing object entry which becomes the immediate superior (parent)of the existing entry. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 26 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 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 Mar 2004 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 the entryAlreadyExists result code. The object named in newSuperior MUST exist. For example, if the client attempted to add "CN=JS,DC=Example,DC=NET", the "DC=Example,DC=NET" entry did not exist, and the "DC=NET" entry did @@ -1498,32 +1551,32 @@ CompareRequest ::= [APPLICATION 14] SEQUENCE { entry LDAPDN, ava AttributeValueAssertion } Parameters of the Compare Request are: - 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 27 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - ava: the assertion with which an attribute in the entry is to be 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 28 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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. In the event that the attribute or subtype is not present in the entry, the resultCode field is set to noSuchAttribute. If the attribute is unknown, the resultCode is set to undefinedAttributeType. 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 @@ -1536,50 +1589,49 @@ 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 earlier in this LDAP association. The abandon request itself has its own message id. This is distinct from the id of the earlier operation being abandoned. - There is no response defined in the Abandon operation. Upon reciept + There is no response defined in the Abandon operation. Upon receipt of an AbandonRequest, the server MAY abandon the operation identified by the MessageID. Operation responses are not sent for successfully abandoned operations, thus a client SHOULD NOT use the Abandon operation when it needs an indication of whether the operation was abandoned. For example, if a client performs an update operation (Add, Modify, or ModifyDN), and it needs to know whether the directory has changed due to the operation, it should not use the Abandon operation to cancel the update 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 - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 28 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - request immediately, and MUST NOT send the SearchResponseDone. Of 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 Mar 2004 Page 29 + 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. @@ -1611,32 +1663,32 @@ protocolError result code. The requestValue and responseValue fields contain any information associated with the operation. The format of these fields is defined by the specification of the extended operation. Implementations MUST be prepared to handle arbitrary contents of these fields, including zero bytes. Values that are defined in terms of ASN.1 and BER encoded according to Section 5.1, also follow the extensibility rules in Section 4. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 29 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - Extended operations may be specified in other documents. The specification of an extended operation consists of: - the OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to the ExtendedRequest.requestName (and possibly ExtendedResponse.responseName), - the format of the contents of the requestValue and responseValue (if any), +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 30 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - the semantics of the operation, Servers list the requestName of all ExtendedRequests they recognize in the supportedExtension attribute [Models] in the root DSE. requestValues and responseValues that are defined in terms of ASN.1 and BER encoded according to Section 5.1, also follow the extensibility rules in Section 4. 4.13. Start TLS Operation @@ -1666,31 +1718,31 @@ the other values outlined in section 4.13.2.2. 4.13.2.1. "Success" Response If the Start TLS Response contains a result code of success, this indicates that the server is willing and able to negotiate TLS. Refer to section 5.3 of [AuthMeth] for details. 4.13.2.2. Response other than "success" -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 30 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - If the ExtendedResponse contains a result code other than success, this indicates that the server is unwilling or unable to negotiate TLS. The following result codes have these meanings for this operation: - operationsError: operations sequencing incorrect; e.g. TLS already established) +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 31 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + - protocolError: (TLS not supported or incorrect PDU structure) - unavailable: (e.g. some major problem with TLS, or server is shutting down) 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 @@ -1719,32 +1771,32 @@ 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. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 31 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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. After the TLS connection has been closed, the server MUST NOT send responses to any request message received before the TLS closure. 4.13.3.2. Abrupt Closure +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 32 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 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 LDAP 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. @@ -1772,32 +1824,32 @@ noted. 5.2. Transfer Protocols This protocol is designed to run over connection-oriented, reliable transports, with all 8 bits in an octet being significant in the data stream. 5.2.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 32 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - The encoded LDAPMessage PDUs are mapped directly onto the [TCP] bytestream using the BER-based encoding described in section 5.1. It is recommended that server implementations running 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 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 33 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + 6.1. Server Implementations The server MUST be capable of recognizing all the mandatory attribute types specified in [Models], and implement the syntaxes used by those attributes specified in [Syntaxes]. Servers MAY also recognize additional attribute type names. 6.2. Client Implementations Clients that follow referrals or search continuation references MUST @@ -1825,29 +1877,37 @@ It is also permitted that the server can return its credentials to the client, if it chooses to do so. 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. Requirements of authentication methods, SASL mechanisms, and TLS are described in [AUTHMETH]. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 33 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - 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 the unprotected name field. + Server implementors should plan for the possibility of an identity or + associated with an LDAP connection being deleted, renamed, or + modified, and take appropriate actions to prevent insecure side + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 34 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + effects. The way in which this is dealt with is implementation + specific. Likewise, server implementors should plan for the + possibility of an associated identities credentials becoming invalid. + Implementations which cache attributes and entries obtained via LDAP MUST ensure that access controls are maintained if that information is to be provided to multiple clients, since servers may have access control policies which prevent the return of entries or attributes in search results except to particular authenticated clients. For example, caches could serve result information only to the client whose request caused it to be in the cache. Protocol servers may return referrals which redirect protocol clients to peer servers. It is possible for a rogue application to inject @@ -1873,28 +1933,31 @@ [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). [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.680] ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (07/2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002 + "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. + [X.690] ITU-T Rec. X.690 (07/2002) | ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002, + "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: + Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical + Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules + (DER)", 2002. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 34 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 35 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 [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. [RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode @@ -1935,37 +1998,42 @@ as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex #27: Unicode 3.1" (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2" (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/). [TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD7, September 1981 [IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD5, September 1981 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 35 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 36 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 10. Informative References [CERT] the CERT(R) Center, (http://www.cert.org) -11. Editor's Address +11. IANA Considerations + It is requested that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) + update the occurrence of "RFC XXXX" Appendix B with this RFC number + at publication. + +12. 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 Dec 2003 Page 36 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 37 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 @@ -2003,21 +2071,21 @@ 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 [RFC2246] while there are other operations outstanding or if TLS was already established. protocolError (2) -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 37 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 38 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Indicates the server received data which has incorrect structure. For bind operation only, the code may be resulted to indicate the server does not support the requested protocol version. timeLimitExceeded (3) @@ -2045,32 +2113,34 @@ This result code is normally only returned by the compare operation. authMethodNotSupported (7) Indicates that the authentication method or mechanism is not supported. strongAuthRequired (8) - Except when returned in a Notice of Disconnect (see section - 4.4.1), this indicates that the server requires the client to - authentication using a strong(er) mechanism. + Indicates that the server has detected that an established + security association between the client and server has + unexpectedly failed or been compromised, or that the server + now requires the client to authenticate using a strong(er) + mechanism. referral (10) +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 39 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + Indicates that a referral needs to be chased to complete the operation (see section 4.1.11). -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 38 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - adminLimitExceeded (11) 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) @@ -2101,21 +2171,21 @@ constraintViolation (19) Indicates that the client supplied an attribute value which does not conform to constraints placed upon it by the data model. For example, this code is returned when the multiple values are supplied to an attribute which has a SINGLE-VALUE constraint. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 39 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 40 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 attributeOrValueExists (20) Indicates that the client supplied an attribute or value to be added to an entry already exists. invalidAttributeSyntax (21) Indicates that a purported attribute value does not conform @@ -2148,25 +2218,25 @@ 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 password or SASL credentials are invalid. - insufficientAccessRights (50) - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 40 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 41 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + insufficientAccessRights (50) + Indicates that the client does not have sufficient access rights to perform the operation. busy (51) Indicates that the server is busy. unavailable (52) Indicates that the server is shutting down or a subsystem @@ -2198,48 +2268,52 @@ Indicates that the operation is inappropriately attempting to remove a value which forms the entry's relative distinguished name. entryAlreadyExists (68) Indicates that the request cannot be added fulfilled as the entry already exists. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 41 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 42 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 objectClassModsProhibited (69) Indicates that the attempt to modify the object class(es) of an entry objectClass attribute is prohibited. For example, this code is returned when a when a client attempts to modify the structural object class of an entry. affectsMultipleDSAs (71) Indicates that the operation cannot be completed as it affects multiple servers (DSAs). other (80) Indicates the server has encountered an internal error. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 42 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 43 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Appendix B - Complete ASN.1 Definition This appendix is normative. - Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol-V3 DEFINITIONS + Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol-V3 + -- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). This version of + -- this ASN.1 module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC itself + -- for full legal notices. + DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED ::= BEGIN LDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE { messageID MessageID, protocolOp CHOICE { bindRequest BindRequest, bindResponse BindResponse, @@ -2271,29 +2345,29 @@ 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 -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 43 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 44 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - AttributeDescription + -- Constrained to attributedescription + -- [Models] + + AttributeSelection ::= SEQUENCE OF + LDAPString AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE { attributeDesc AttributeDescription, assertionValue AssertionValue } AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING Attribute ::= SEQUENCE { @@ -2329,28 +2403,28 @@ noSuchObject (32), aliasProblem (33), invalidDNSyntax (34), -- 35 reserved for undefined isLeaf -- aliasDereferencingProblem (36), -- 37-47 unused -- inappropriateAuthentication (48), invalidCredentials (49), insufficientAccessRights (50), busy (51), + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 45 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + unavailable (52), unwillingToPerform (53), loopDetect (54), -- 55-63 unused -- - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 44 - 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), @@ -2387,39 +2461,39 @@ mechanism LDAPString, credentials OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } BindResponse ::= [APPLICATION 1] SEQUENCE { COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult, serverSaslCreds [7] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } UnbindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 2] NULL SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE { + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 46 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + baseObject LDAPDN, scope ENUMERATED { baseObject (0), singleLevel (1), - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 45 - 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 } + attributes AttributeSelection } 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, @@ -2446,36 +2520,31 @@ attributes PartialAttributeList } PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF URL SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult - ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE { - object LDAPDN, - modification SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 46 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 47 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE { + object LDAPDN, + changes SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { operation ENUMERATED { add (0), delete (1), replace (2) }, - modification AttributeTypeAndValues } } - - AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE { - type AttributeDescription, - vals SET OF AttributeValue } + modification Attribute } } ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult AddRequest ::= [APPLICATION 8] SEQUENCE { entry LDAPDN, attributes AttributeList } AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE { type AttributeDescription, vals SET OF AttributeValue } @@ -2506,21 +2575,21 @@ requestName [0] LDAPOID, requestValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } ExtendedResponse ::= [APPLICATION 24] SEQUENCE { COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult, responseName [10] LDAPOID OPTIONAL, responseValue [11] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } END -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 47 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 48 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Appendix C - Change History C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251: C.1.1 Editorial @@ -2563,21 +2632,21 @@ 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 Dec 2003 Page 48 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 49 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 @@ -2619,21 +2688,21 @@ 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 Dec 2003 Page 49 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 50 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 @@ -2675,21 +2744,21 @@ 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 Dec 2003 Page 50 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 51 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 @@ -2731,21 +2800,21 @@ 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 Dec 2003 Page 51 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 52 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." @@ -2788,21 +2857,21 @@ - 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 Dec 2003 Page 52 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 53 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". @@ -2844,21 +2913,21 @@ 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 Dec 2003 Page 53 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 54 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 @@ -2900,21 +2969,21 @@ 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 Dec 2003 Page 54 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 55 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. @@ -2957,21 +3026,21 @@ - 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 Dec 2003 Page 55 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 56 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] @@ -3014,21 +3083,21 @@ - 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 Dec 2003 Page 56 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 57 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. Please refer to draft-legg-ldap-binary-00.txt and draft- legg-ldap-transfer-00.txt @@ -3068,21 +3137,21 @@ 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 Dec 2003 Page 57 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 58 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 @@ -3123,40 +3192,40 @@ C.15 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-13.txt C.15.1 Section 2 & various - Added definitions for LDAP connection, TLS connection, and LDAP association, and updated appropriate fields to use proper terms. C.15.2 Section 4.2 - Added text to authentication, specifying the way in which textual strings used as passwords are to be prepared. -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 58 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 59 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 C.15.3 Section 4.5.1 - Clarified derefInSearching. Specifically how it works in terms of subtree and one level searches C.15.4 Section 4.5.2 - Changed MUST to SHOULD for returning textual attribute name, The MUST is unreasonable. There are likely cases (such as when the server knows multiple attributes in separate entries of a search result set share the same short name) where returning a numericoid is better than returning a short name. That is, the MUST may actually disallow servers from preventing misinterpretation of short names. This is not only an interop issue, but likely a security consideration. C.15.4 Section 4.9 - - Made modify consistent with add in regards to teh need of parent + - Made modify consistent with add in regards to the need of parent entries already existing. C.15.6 Section 4.13.2.2 - Removed wording indicating that referrals can be returned from StartTLS C.16 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-14.txt C.16.1 Section 4.1.9 @@ -3180,21 +3249,21 @@ negotiations of a particular mechanism, the mechanism technical specification should detail how applications are to deal with them. LDAP should not require any special handling. And if an LDAP client had used such a mechanism, it would have the option of using another mechanism. C.16.3 Section 4.5.2 and Section 7 - Removed: "If the LDAP association is operating over a connection- oriented transport such as TCP" -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 59 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 60 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 This is always true. C.16.4 Section 4.11 - Added: thus a client SHOULD NOT use the Abandon operation when it needs an indication of whether the operation was abandoned. For example, if a client performs an update operation (Add, Modify, or ModifyDN), and it needs to know whether the directory has changed due to the operation, it should not use the Abandon operation to @@ -3237,21 +3306,21 @@ C.16.6 Section 4.13.3.1 - Added: After the TLS connection has been closed, the server MUST NOT send responses to any request message received before the TLS closure. C.16.7 Section A2 - Removed precedence rules -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 60 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 61 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 C.17 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-15.txt C.17.1 Section 4.1.8 - Removed: "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 @@ -3274,48 +3343,95 @@ arbitrary length protocol encodings. A number of LDAP security advisories are available through [CERT]. C.17.4 Section 10 - Added as Informative References C.17.5 Various - Clarified that the [LDAPURL] form or URLs in referrals specifies LDAP servers implementing TCP/IP. +C.18 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-16.txt + +C.18.1 Section 4.1.4 and others + - Renamed AttributeDescriptionList to AttributeSelection and moved + its definition to 4.5.1 (the only place it is referenced). + +C.18.2 Sections 4.1.10, 4.5.3 + - Made obvious the fact that instructions regarding LDAP URLS used + as referrals and search result references only apply to LDAP URLs, + and that other URLs need to define their own instructions. + +C.18.3 Section 4.2.1 + - Further clarified the authentication state of an abandoned bind + +C.18.4 Section 4.5.1 + - Added: "Note that the AssertionValue in a substrings filter item + MUST conform to the assertion syntax of the EQUALITY matching rule + for the attribute type rather than the assertion syntax of the + SUBSTR matching rule for the attribute type. The entire + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 62 + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 + + SubstringFilter is converted into an assertion value of the + substrings matching rule prior to applying the rule." + +C.18.5 Section 4.6 + - Replaced AttributeTypeAndValues with Attribute as they are + equivalent. + + - Reformatted documentation of the various fields. + + - Clarified what type of modification changes might temporarily + violate schema. + +C.18.6 Section 7 + - Added: "Server implementors should plan for the possibility of an + identity or associated with an LDAP connection being deleted, + renamed, or modified, and take appropriate actions to prevent + insecure side effects. The way in which this is dealt with is + implementation specific. Likewise, server implementors should plan + for the possibility of an associated identities credentials + becoming invalid." + +C.18.7 Section 9 + - Updated references to X.680 and X.690 + +C.18.8 Section 11 + - Added IANA considerations + +C.18.9 Section A.2 + - Clarified that strongAuthRequired could be sent any time + (including when credentials have been weakened or compromised. + +C.18.10 Appendix B + - Added copyright to ASN.1 definition + Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items D.1 General - 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. + implicitly adding objectClass superclasses when a value is added. D.2 Verify references. - Many referenced documents have changed. Ensure references and section numbers are correct. D.3 Review 2119 usage D.4 Reconcile with I-D Nits -D.5 Various issues on ldapbis mailing list (some may already be - resolved) - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 61 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 - - - "Attribute Name Length Bounds" thread. - - - "Extensibility of SearchRequest.attributes" thread - -Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Dec 2003 Page 62 +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 63 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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 @@ -3331,10 +3447,12 @@ The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Mar 2004 Page 64