7 Network Working Group J. Strassner
8 Request for Comments: 3703 Intelliden Corporation
9 Category: Standards Track B. Moore
17 Policy Core Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Schema
21 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
22 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
23 improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
24 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
25 and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
29 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
33 This document defines a mapping of the Policy Core Information Model
34 to a form that can be implemented in a directory that uses
35 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) as its access protocol.
36 This model defines two hierarchies of object classes: structural
37 classes representing information for representing and controlling
38 policy data as specified in RFC 3060, and relationship classes that
39 indicate how instances of the structural classes are related to each
40 other. Classes are also added to the LDAP schema to improve the
41 performance of a client's interactions with an LDAP server when the
42 client is retrieving large amounts of policy-related information.
43 These classes exist only to optimize LDAP retrievals: there are no
44 classes in the information model that correspond to them.
48 1. Introduction ................................................. 2
49 2. The Policy Core Information Model ............................ 4
50 3. Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS ........................... 5
51 4. General Discussion of Mapping the Information Model to LDAP .. 6
52 4.1. Summary of Class and Association Mappings .............. 7
53 4.2. Usage of DIT Content and Structure Rules and Name Forms. 9
54 4.3. Naming Attributes in the PCLS .......................... 10
58 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
60 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
63 4.4. Rule-Specific and Reusable Conditions and Actions ...... 11
64 4.5. Location and Retrieval of Policy Objects in the
65 Directory .............................................. 16
66 4.5.1. Aliases and Other DIT-Optimization Techniques .. 19
67 5. Class Definitions ............................................ 19
68 5.1. The Abstract Class "pcimPolicy" ........................ 21
69 5.2. The Three Policy Group Classes ......................... 22
70 5.3. The Three Policy Rule Classes .......................... 23
71 5.4. The Class pcimRuleConditionAssociation ................. 30
72 5.5. The Class pcimRuleValidityAssociation .................. 32
73 5.6. The Class pcimRuleActionAssociation .................... 34
74 5.7. The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionAuxClass .............. 36
75 5.8. The Auxiliary Class pcimTPCAuxClass .................... 36
76 5.9. The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionVendorAuxClass ........ 40
77 5.10. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionAuxClass ................. 41
78 5.11. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionVendorAuxClass ........... 42
79 5.12. The Class pcimPolicyInstance ........................... 43
80 5.13. The Auxiliary Class pcimElementAuxClass ................ 44
81 5.14. The Three Policy Repository Classes .................... 45
82 5.15. The Auxiliary Class pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass ............ 46
83 5.16. The Auxiliary Class pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass ....... 48
84 5.17. The Auxiliary Class pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass ........ 49
85 6. Extending the Classes Defined in This Document ............... 50
86 6.1. Subclassing pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass 50
87 6.2. Using the Vendor Policy Attributes ..................... 50
88 6.3. Using Time Validity Periods ............................ 51
89 7. Security Considerations ...................................... 51
90 8. IANA Considerations .......................................... 53
91 8.1. Object Identifiers ..................................... 53
92 8.2. Object Identifier Descriptors .......................... 53
93 9. Acknowledgments .............................................. 56
94 10. Appendix: Constructing the Value of orderedCIMKeys .......... 57
95 11. References ................................................... 58
96 11.1. Normative References ................................... 58
97 11.2. Informative References ................................. 59
98 12. Authors' Addresses ........................................... 60
99 13. Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 61
103 This document takes as its starting point the object-oriented
104 information model for representing information for representing and
105 controlling policy data as specified in [1]. Lightweight Directory
106 Access Protocol (LDAP) [2] implementers, please note that the use of
107 the term "policy" in this document does not refer to the use of the
108 term "policy" as defined in X.501 [4]. Rather, the use of the term
109 "policy" throughout this document is defined as follows:
114 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
116 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
119 Policy is defined as a set of rules to administer, manage, and
120 control access to network resources.
122 This work is currently under joint development in the IETF's Policy
123 Framework working group and in the Policy working group of the
124 Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF). This model defines two
125 hierarchies of object classes: structural classes representing policy
126 information and control of policies, and relationship classes that
127 indicate how instances of the structural classes are related to each
128 other. In general, both of these class hierarchies will need to be
129 mapped to a particular data store.
131 This document defines the mapping of these information model classes
132 to a directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol. Two types of
133 mappings are involved:
135 - For the structural classes in the information model, the
136 mapping is basically one-for-one: information model classes map
137 to LDAP classes, information model properties map to LDAP
140 - For the relationship classes in the information model,
141 different mappings are possible. In this document, the Policy
142 Core Information Model's (PCIM's) relationship classes and
143 their properties are mapped in three ways: to LDAP auxiliary
144 classes, to attributes representing distinguished name (DN)
145 references, and to superior-subordinate relationships in the
146 Directory Information Tree (DIT).
148 Implementations that use an LDAP directory as their policy repository
149 and want to implement policy information according to RFC 3060 [1]
150 SHALL use the LDAP schema defined in this document, or a schema that
151 subclasses from the schema defined in this document. The use of the
152 information model defined in reference [1] as the starting point
153 enables the inheritance and the relationship class hierarchies to be
154 extensible, such that other types of policy repositories, such as
155 relational databases, can also use this information.
157 This document fits into the overall framework for representing,
158 deploying, and managing policies being developed by the Policy
159 Framework Working Group.
161 The LDAP schema described in this document uses the prefix "pcim" to
162 identify its classes and attributes. It consists of ten very general
163 classes: pcimPolicy (an abstract class), three policy group classes
164 (pcimGroup, pcimGroupAuxClass, and pcimGroupInstance), three policy
165 rule classes (pcimRule, pcimRuleAuxClass, and pcimRuleInstance), and
166 three special auxiliary classes (pcimConditionAuxClass,
170 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
172 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
175 pcimTPCAuxClass, and pcimActionAuxClass). (Note that the
176 PolicyTimePeriodCondition auxiliary class defined in [1] would
177 normally have been named pcimTimePeriodConditionAuxClass, but this
178 name is too long for some directories. Therefore, we have
179 abbreviated this name to be pcimTPCAuxClass).
181 The mapping for the PCIM classes pcimGroup and pcimRule is designed
182 to be as flexible as possible. Three classes are defined for these
183 two PCIM classes. First, an abstract superclass is defined that
184 contains all required properties of each PCIM class. Then, both an
185 auxiliary class as well as a structural class are derived from the
186 abstract superclass. This provides maximum flexibility for the
189 The schema also contains two less general classes:
190 pcimConditionVendorAuxClass and pcimActionVendorAuxClass. To achieve
191 the mapping of the information model's relationships, the schema also
192 contains two auxiliary classes: pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass and
193 pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass. Capturing the distinction between
194 rule-specific and reusable policy conditions and policy actions
195 introduces seven other classes: pcimRuleConditionAssociation,
196 pcimRuleValidityAssociation, pcimRuleActionAssociation,
197 pcimPolicyInstance, and three policy repository classes
198 (pcimRepository, pcimRepositoryAuxClass, and pcimRepositoryInstance).
199 Finally, the schema includes two classes (pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass and
200 pcimElementAuxClass) for optimizing LDAP retrievals. In all, the
201 schema contains 23 classes.
203 Within the context of this document, the term "PCLS" (Policy Core
204 LDAP Schema) is used to refer to the LDAP class definitions that this
205 document contains. The term "PCIM" refers to classes defined in [1].
207 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
208 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
209 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [10].
211 2. The Policy Core Information Model
213 This document contains an LDAP schema representing the classes
214 defined in the companion document "Policy Core Information
215 Model -- Version 1 Specification" [1]. Other documents may
216 subsequently be produced, with mappings of this same PCIM to other
217 storage technologies. Since the detailed semantics of the PCIM
218 classes appear only in [1], that document is a prerequisite for
219 reading and understanding this document.
226 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
228 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
231 3. Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS
233 The following diagram illustrates the class hierarchy for the LDAP
234 Classes defined in this document:
238 +--dlm1ManagedElement (abstract)
240 | +--pcimPolicy (abstract)
242 | | +--pcimGroup (abstract)
244 | | | +--pcimGroupAuxClass (auxiliary)
246 | | | +--pcimGroupInstance (structural)
248 | | +--pcimRule (abstract)
250 | | | +--pcimRuleAuxClass (auxiliary)
252 | | | +--pcimRuleInstance (structural)
254 | | +--pcimRuleConditionAssociation (structural)
256 | | +--pcimRuleValidityAssociation (structural)
258 | | +--pcimRuleActionAssociation (structural)
260 | | +--pcimPolicyInstance (structural)
262 | | +--pcimElementAuxClass (auxiliary)
264 | +--dlm1ManagedSystemElement (abstract)
266 | +--dlm1LogicalElement (abstract)
268 | +--dlm1System (abstract)
270 | +--dlm1AdminDomain (abstract)
272 | +--pcimRepository (abstract)
274 | +--pcimRepositoryAuxClass (auxiliary)
282 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
284 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
289 | +--pcimRepositoryInstance
292 +--pcimConditionAuxClass (auxiliary)
294 | +---pcimTPCAuxClass (auxiliary)
296 | +---pcimConditionVendorAuxClass (auxiliary)
298 +--pcimActionAuxClass (auxiliary)
300 | +---pcimActionVendorAuxClass (auxiliary)
302 +--pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass (auxiliary)
304 +--pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass (auxiliary)
306 +--pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass (auxiliary)
308 Figure 1. LDAP Class Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS
310 4. General Discussion of Mapping the Information Model to LDAP
312 The classes described in Section 5 below contain certain
313 optimizations for a directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol.
314 One example of this is the use of auxiliary classes to represent some
315 of the associations defined in the information model. Other data
316 stores might need to implement these associations differently. A
317 second example is the introduction of classes specifically designed
318 to optimize retrieval of large amounts of policy-related data from a
319 directory. This section discusses some general topics related to the
320 mapping from the information model to LDAP.
322 The remainder of this section will discuss the following topics.
323 Section 4.1 will discuss the strategy used in mapping the classes and
324 associations defined in [1] to a form that can be represented in a
325 directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol. Section 4.2
326 discusses DIT content and structure rules, as well as name forms.
327 Section 4.3 describes the strategy used in defining naming attributes
328 for the schema described in Section 5 of this document. Section 4.4
329 defines the strategy recommended for locating and retrieving
330 PCIM-derived objects in the directory.
338 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
340 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
343 4.1. Summary of Class and Association Mappings
345 Fifteen of the classes in the PCLS come directly from the nine
346 corresponding classes in the information model. Note that names of
347 classes begin with an upper case character in the information model
348 (although for CIM in particular, case is not significant in class and
349 property names), but with a lower case character in LDAP. This is
350 because although LDAP doesn't care, X.500 doesn't allow class names
351 to begin with an uppercase character. Note also that the prefix
352 "pcim" is used to identify these LDAP classes.
354 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
355 | Information Model | LDAP Class(es) |
356 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
357 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
358 | Policy | pcimPolicy |
359 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
360 | PolicyGroup | pcimGroup |
361 | | pcimGroupAuxClass |
362 | | pcimGroupInstance |
363 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
364 | PolicyRule | pcimRule |
365 | | pcimRuleAuxClass |
366 | | pcimRuleInstance |
367 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
368 | PolicyCondition | pcimConditionAuxClass |
369 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
370 | PolicyAction | pcimActionAuxClass |
371 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
372 | VendorPolicyCondition | pcimConditionVendorAuxClass |
373 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
374 | VendorPolicyAction | pcimActionVendorAuxClass |
375 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
376 | PolicyTimePeriodCondition | pcimTPCAuxClass |
377 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
378 | PolicyRepository | pcimRepository |
379 | | pcimRepositoryAuxClass |
380 | | pcimRepositoryInstance |
381 +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
383 Figure 2. Mapping of Information Model Classes to LDAP
385 The associations in the information model map to attributes that
386 reference DNs (Distinguished Names) or to Directory Information Tree
387 (DIT) containment (i.e., superior-subordinate relationships) in LDAP.
388 Two of the attributes that reference DNs appear in auxiliary classes,
389 which allow each of them to represent several relationships from the
394 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
396 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
399 +----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
400 | Information Model Association | LDAP Attribute / Class |
401 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
402 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
403 | PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup | pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet in |
404 | | pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass |
405 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
406 | PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup | pcimRulesAuxContainedSet in |
407 | | pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass |
408 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
409 | PolicyConditionInPolicyRule | DIT containment or |
410 | | pcimRuleConditionList in |
412 | | pcimConditionDN in |
413 | | pcimRuleConditionAssociation |
414 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
415 | PolicyActionInPolicyRule | DIT containment or |
416 | | pcimRuleActionList in |
418 | | pcimActionDN in |
419 | | pcimRuleActionAssociation |
420 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
421 | PolicyRuleValidityPeriod | pcimRuleValidityPeriodList |
422 | | in pcimRule or (if reusable) |
423 | | referenced through the |
424 | | pcimTimePeriodConditionDN in |
425 | | pcimRuleValidityAssociation |
426 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
427 | PolicyConditionInPolicyRepository | DIT containment |
428 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
429 | PolicyActionInPolicyRepository | DIT containment |
430 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
431 | PolicyRepositoryInPolicyRepository| DIT containment |
432 +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
434 Figure 3. Mapping of Information Model Associations to LDAP
436 Of the remaining classes in the PCLS, two (pcimElementAuxClass and
437 pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass) are included to make navigation through the
438 DIT and retrieval of the entries found there more efficient. This
439 topic is discussed below in Section 4.5.
441 The remaining four classes in the PCLS, pcimRuleConditionAssociation,
442 pcimRuleValidityAssociation, pcimRuleActionAssociation, and
443 pcimPolicyInstance, are all involved with the representation of
444 policy conditions and policy actions in an LDAP directory. This
445 topic is discussed below in Section 4.4.
450 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
452 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
455 4.2. Usage of DIT Content and Structure Rules and Name Forms
457 There are three powerful tools that can be used to help define
458 schemata. The first, DIT content rules, is a way of defining the
459 content of an entry for a structural object class. It can be used to
460 specify the following characteristics of the entry:
462 - additional mandatory attributes that the entries are required
464 - additional optional attributes the entries are allowed to
466 - the set of additional auxiliary object classes that these
467 entries are allowed to be members of
468 - any optional attributes from the structural and auxiliary
469 object class definitions that the entries are required to
472 DIT content rules are NOT mandatory for any structural object class.
474 A DIT structure rule, together with a name form, controls the
475 placement and naming of an entry within the scope of a subschema.
476 Name forms define which attribute type(s) are required and are
477 allowed to be used in forming the Relative Distinguished Names (RDNs)
478 of entries. DIT structure rules specify which entries are allowed to
479 be superior to other entries, and hence control the way that RDNs are
480 added together to make DNs.
482 A name form specifies the following:
484 - the structural object class of the entries named by this name
486 - attributes that are required to be used in forming the RDNs of
488 - attributes that are allowed to be used in forming the RDNs of
490 - an object identifier to uniquely identify this name form
492 Note that name forms can only be specified for structural object
493 classes. However, every entry in the DIT must have a name form
496 Unfortunately, current LDAP servers vary quite a lot in their support
497 of these features. There are also three crucial implementation
498 points that must be followed. First, X.500 use of structure rules
499 requires that a structural object class with no superior structure
500 rule be a subschema administrative point. This is exactly NOT what
501 we want for policy information. Second, when an auxiliary class is
502 subclassed, if a content rule exists for the structural class that
506 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
508 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
511 the auxiliary class refers to, then that content rule needs to be
512 augmented. Finally, most LDAP servers unfortunately do not support
513 inheritance of structure and content rules.
515 Given these concerns, DIT structure and content rules have been
516 removed from the PCLS. This is because, if included, they would be
517 normative references and would require OIDs. However, we don't want
518 to lose the insight gained in building the structure and content
519 rules of the previous version of the schema. Therefore, we describe
520 where such rules could be used in this schema, what they would
521 control, and what their effect would be.
523 4.3. Naming Attributes in the PCLS
525 Instances in a directory are identified by distinguished names (DNs),
526 which provide the same type of hierarchical organization that a file
527 system provides in a computer system. A distinguished name is a
528 sequence of RDNs. An RDN provides a unique identifier for an
529 instance within the context of its immediate superior, in the same
530 way that a filename provides a unique identifier for a file within
531 the context of the folder in which it resides.
533 To preserve maximum naming flexibility for policy administrators,
534 three optional (i.e., "MAY") naming attributes have been defined.
537 - Each of the structural classes defined in this schema has its
538 own unique ("MAY") naming attribute. Since the naming
539 attributes are different, a policy administrator can, by using
540 these attributes, guarantee that there will be no name
541 collisions between instances of different classes, even if the
542 same value is assigned to the instances' respective naming
545 - The LDAP attribute cn (corresponding to X.500's commonName) is
546 included as a MAY attribute in the abstract class pcimPolicy,
547 and thus by inheritance in all of its subclasses. In X.500,
548 commonName typically functions as an RDN attribute, for naming
549 instances of many classes (e.g., X.500's person class).
551 - A special attribute is provided for implementations that expect
552 to map between native CIM and LDAP representations of policy
553 information. This attribute, called orderedCimKeys, is defined
554 in the class dlm1ManagedElement [6]. The value of this
555 attribute is derived algorithmically from values that are
556 already present in a CIM policy instance. The normative
557 reference for this algorithm is contained in [6]. See the
558 appendix of this document for a description of the algorithm.
562 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
564 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
567 Since any of these naming attributes MAY be used for naming an
568 instance of a PCLS class, implementations MUST be able to accommodate
569 instances named in any of these ways.
571 Note that it is recommended that two or more of these attributes
572 SHOULD NOT be used together to form a multi-part RDN, since support
573 for multi-part RDNs is limited among existing directory
576 4.4. Rule-Specific and Reusable Conditions and Actions
578 The PCIM [1] distinguishes between two types of policy conditions and
579 policy actions: those associated with a single policy rule, and
580 those that are reusable, in the sense that they may be associated
581 with more than one policy rule. While there is no inherent
582 functional difference between a rule-specific condition or action and
583 a reusable one, there is both a usage, as well as, an implementation
584 difference between them.
586 Defining a condition or action as reusable vs. rule-specific reflects
587 a conscious decision on the part of the administrator in defining how
588 they are used. In addition, there are variations that reflect
589 implementing rule-specific vs. reusable policy conditions and actions
590 and how they are treated in a policy repository. The major
591 implementation differences between a rule-specific and a reusable
592 condition or action are delineated below:
594 1. It is natural for a rule-specific condition or action to be
595 removed from the policy repository at the same time the rule is.
596 It is just the opposite for reusable conditions and actions.
597 This is because the condition or action is conceptually attached
598 to the rule in the rule-specific case, whereas it is referenced
599 (e.g., pointed at) in the reusable case. The persistence of a
600 pcimRepository instance is independent of the persistence of a
602 2. Access permissions for a rule-specific condition or action are
603 usually identical to those for the rule itself. On the other
604 hand, access permissions of reusable conditions and actions must
605 be expressible without reference to a policy rule.
606 3. Rule-specific conditions and actions require fewer accesses,
607 because the conditions and actions are "attached" to the rule.
608 In contrast, reusable conditions and actions require more
609 accesses, because each condition or action that is reusable
610 requires a separate access.
611 4. Rule-specific conditions and actions are designed for use by a
612 single rule. As the number of rules that use the same
613 rule-specific condition increase, subtle problems are created
614 (the most obvious being how to keep the rule-specific conditions
618 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
620 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
623 and actions updated to reflect the same value). Reusable
624 conditions and actions lend themselves for use by multiple
626 5. Reusable conditions and actions offer an optimization when
627 multiple rules are using the same condition or action. This is
628 because the reusable condition or action only needs be updated
629 once, and by virtue of DN reference, the policy rules will be
630 automatically updated.
632 The preceding paragraph does not contain an exhaustive list of the
633 ways in which reusable and rule-specific conditions should be treated
634 differently. Its purpose is merely to justify making a semantic
635 distinction between rule-specific and reusable, and then reflecting
636 this distinction in the policy repository itself.
638 When the policy repository is realized in an LDAP-accessible
639 directory, the distinction between rule-specific and reusable
640 conditions and actions is realized via placement of auxiliary classes
641 and via DIT containment. Figure 4 illustrates a policy rule Rule1
642 with one rule-specific condition CA and one rule-specific action AB.
654 +--------+ +--------+
656 +--------+ +--------+
659 +------------------------------+
661 | ***** DIT containment |
662 | + auxiliary attachment |
663 | ----> DN reference |
664 +------------------------------+
666 Figure 4 Rule-Specific Policy Conditions and Actions
674 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
676 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
679 Because the condition and action are specific to Rule1, the auxiliary
680 classes ca and ab that represent them are attached, respectively, to
681 the structural classes CA and AB. These structural classes represent
682 not the condition ca and action ab themselves, but rather the
683 associations between Rule1 and ca, and between Rule1 and ab.
685 As Figure 4 illustrates, Rule1 contains DN references to the
686 structural classes CA and AB that appear below it in the DIT. At
687 first glance it might appear that these DN references are
688 unnecessary, since a subtree search below Rule1 would find all of the
689 structural classes representing the associations between Rule1 and
690 its conditions and actions. Relying only on a subtree search,
691 though, runs the risk of missing conditions or actions that should
692 have appeared in the subtree, but for some reason did not, or of
693 finding conditions or actions that were inadvertently placed in the
694 subtree, or that should have been removed from the subtree, but for
695 some reason were not. Implementation experience has suggested that
696 many (but not all) of these risks are eliminated.
698 However, it must be noted that this comes at a price. The use of DN
699 references, as shown in Figure 4 above, thwarts inheritance of access
700 control information as well as existence dependency information. It
701 also is subject to referential integrity considerations. Therefore,
702 it is being included as an option for the designer.
704 Figure 5 illustrates a second way of representing rule-specific
705 conditions and actions in an LDAP-accessible directory: attachment of
706 the auxiliary classes directly to the instance representing the
707 policy rule. When all of the conditions and actions are attached to
708 a policy rule in this way, the rule is termed a "simple" policy rule.
709 When conditions and actions are not attached directly to a policy
710 rule, the rule is termed a "complex" policy rule.
717 +------------------------------+
719 | + auxiliary attachment |
720 +------------------------------+
722 Figure 5. A Simple Policy Rule
730 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
732 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
735 The simple/complex distinction for a policy rule is not all or
736 nothing. A policy rule may have its conditions attached to itself
737 and its actions attached to other entries, or it may have its actions
738 attached to itself and its conditions attached to other entries.
739 However, it SHALL NOT have either its conditions or its actions
740 attached both to itself and to other entries, with one exception: a
741 policy rule may reference its validity periods with the
742 pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute, but have its other conditions
745 The tradeoffs between simple and complex policy rules are between the
746 efficiency of simple rules and the flexibility and greater potential
747 for reuse of complex rules. With a simple policy rule, the semantic
750 - All conditions are ANDed together. This combination can be
751 represented in two ways in the Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF)/
752 Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) (please see [1] for definitions of
753 these terms) expressions characteristic of policy conditions: as
754 a DNF expression with a single AND group, or as a CNF expression
755 with multiple single-condition OR groups. The first of these is
756 arbitrarily chosen as the representation for the ANDed conditions
757 in a simple policy rule.
759 - If multiple actions are included, no order can be specified for
762 If a policy administrator needs to combine conditions in some other
763 way, or if there is a set of actions that must be ordered, then the
764 only option is to use a complex policy rule.
766 Finally, Figure 6 illustrates the same policy rule Rule1, but this
767 time its condition and action are reusable. The association classes
768 CA and AB are still present, and they are still DIT contained under
769 Rule1. But rather than having the auxiliary classes ca and ab
770 attached directly to the association classes CA and AB, each now
771 contains DN references to other entries to which these auxiliary
772 classes are attached. These other entries, CIA and AIB, are DIT
773 contained under RepositoryX, which is an instance of the class
774 pcimRepository. Because they are named under an instance of
775 pcimRepository, ca and ab are clearly identified as reusable.
786 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
788 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
791 +-----+ +-------------+
792 |Rule1| | RepositoryX |
794 | +-----+ | +-------------+
801 v * | -|-------->|AIB+ab| *
802 +---+ +---+ +------+ *
804 | -|------------------------>|CIA+ca|
807 +------------------------------+
809 | ***** DIT containment |
810 | + auxiliary attachment |
811 | ----> DN reference |
812 +------------------------------+
814 Figure 6. Reusable Policy Conditions and Actions
816 The classes pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass do not
817 themselves represent actual conditions and actions: these are
818 introduced in their subclasses. What pcimConditionAuxClass and
819 pcimActionAuxClass do introduce are the semantics of being a policy
820 condition or a policy action. These are the semantics that all the
821 subclasses of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass inherit.
822 Among these semantics are those of representing either a
823 rule-specific or a reusable policy condition or policy action.
825 In order to preserve the ability to represent a rule-specific or a
826 reusable condition or action, as well as a simple policy rule, all
827 the subclasses of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass MUST
828 also be auxiliary classes.
842 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
844 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
847 4.5. Location and Retrieval of Policy Objects in the Directory
849 When a Policy Decision Point (PDP) goes to an LDAP directory to
850 retrieve the policy object instances relevant to the Policy
851 Enforcement Points (PEPs) it serves, it is faced with two related
854 - How does it locate and retrieve the directory entries that apply
855 to its PEPs? These entries may include instances of the PCLS
856 classes, instances of domain-specific subclasses of these
857 classes, and instances of other classes modeling such resources
858 as user groups, interfaces, and address ranges.
860 - How does it retrieve the directory entries it needs in an
861 efficient manner, so that retrieval of policy information from
862 the directory does not become a roadblock to scalability? There
863 are two facets to this efficiency: retrieving only the relevant
864 directory entries, and retrieving these entries using as few LDAP
867 The placement of objects in the Directory Information Tree (DIT)
868 involves considerations other than how the policy-related objects
869 will be retrieved by a PDP. Consequently, all that the PCLS can do
870 is to provide a "toolkit" of classes to assist the policy
871 administrator as the DIT is being designed and built. A PDP SHOULD
872 be able to take advantage of any tools that the policy administrator
873 is able to build into the DIT, but it MUST be able to use a less
874 efficient means of retrieval if that is all it has available to it.
876 The basic idea behind the LDAP optimization classes is a simple one:
877 make it possible for a PDP to retrieve all the policy-related objects
878 it needs, and only those objects, using as few LDAP calls as
879 possible. An important assumption underlying this approach is that
880 the policy administrator has sufficient control over the underlying
881 DIT structure to define subtrees for storing policy information. If
882 the policy administrator does not have this level of control over DIT
883 structure, a PDP can still retrieve the policy-related objects it
884 needs individually. But it will require more LDAP access operations
885 to do the retrieval in this way. Figure 7 illustrates how LDAP
886 optimization is accomplished.
898 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
900 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
904 ---------------->| A |
905 DN reference to | | DN references to subtrees +---+
906 starting object +-----+ +-------------------------->| C |
907 | o--+----+ +---+ +---+
908 | o--+------------->| B | / \
914 Figure 7. Using the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass to Locate Policies
916 The PDP is configured initially with a DN reference to some entry in
917 the DIT. The structural class of this entry is not important; the
918 PDP is interested only in the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass attached to it.
919 This auxiliary class contains a multi-valued attribute with DN
920 references to objects that anchor subtrees containing policy-related
921 objects of interest to the PDP. Since pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass is an
922 auxiliary class, it can be attached to an entry that the PDP would
923 need to access anyway - perhaps an entry containing initial
924 configuration settings for the PDP, or for a PEP that uses the PDP.
926 Once it has retrieved the DN references, the PDP will direct to each
927 of the objects identified by them an LDAP request that all entries in
928 its subtree be evaluated against the selection criteria specified in
929 the request. The LDAP-enabled directory then returns all entries in
930 that subtree that satisfy the specified criteria.
932 The selection criteria always specify that object class="pcimPolicy".
933 Since all classes representing policy rules, policy conditions, and
934 policy actions, both in the PCLS and in any domain-specific schema
935 derived from it, are subclasses of the abstract class policy, this
936 criterion evaluates to TRUE for all instances of these classes. To
937 accommodate special cases where a PDP needs to retrieve objects that
938 are not inherently policy-related (for example, an IP address range
939 object referenced by a subclass of pcimActionAuxClass representing
940 the DHCP action "assign from this address range"), the auxiliary
941 class pcimElementAuxClass can be used to "tag" an entry, so that it
942 will be found by the selection criterion "object class=pcimPolicy".
944 The approach described in the preceding paragraph will not work for
945 certain directory implementations, because these implementations do
946 not support matching of auxiliary classes in the objectClass
947 attribute. For environments where these implementations are expected
948 to be present, the "tagging" of entries as relevant to policy can be
954 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
956 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
959 accomplished by inserting the special value "POLICY" into the list of
960 values contained in the pcimKeywords attribute (provided by the
963 If a PDP needs only a subset of the policy-related objects in the
964 indicated subtrees, then it can be configured with additional
965 selection criteria based on the pcimKeywords attribute defined in the
966 pcimPolicy class. This attribute supports both standardized and
967 administrator- defined values. For example, a PDP could be
968 configured to request only those policy-related objects containing
969 the keywords "DHCP" and "Eastern US".
971 To optimize what is expected to be a typical case, the initial
972 request from the client includes not only the object to which its
973 "seed" DN references, but also the subtree contained under this
974 object. The filter for searching this subtree is whatever the client
975 is going to use later to search the other subtrees: object
976 class="pcimPolicy" or the presence of the keyword "POLICY", and/or
977 presence of a more specific value of pcimKeywords (e.g., "QoS Edge
980 Returning to the example in Figure 7, we see that in the best case, a
981 PDP can get all the policy-related objects it needs, and only those
982 objects, with exactly three LDAP requests: one to its starting
983 object A to get the references to B and C, as well as the
984 policy-related objects it needs from the subtree under A, and then
985 one each to B and C to get all the policy-related objects that pass
986 the selection criteria with which it was configured. Once it has
987 retrieved all of these objects, the PDP can then traverse their
988 various DN references locally to understand the semantic
989 relationships among them. The PDP should also be prepared to find a
990 reference to another subtree attached to any of the objects it
991 retrieves, and to follow this reference first, before it follows any
992 of the semantically significant references it has received. This
993 recursion permits a structured approach to identifying related
994 policies. In Figure 7, for example, if the subtree under B includes
995 departmental policies and the one under C includes divisional
996 policies, then there might be a reference from the subtree under C to
997 an object D that roots the subtree of corporate-level policies.
999 A PDP SHOULD understand the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass class, SHOULD be
1000 capable of retrieving and processing the entries in the subtrees it
1001 references, and SHOULD be capable of doing all of this recursively.
1002 The same requirements apply to any other entity needing to retrieve
1003 policy information from the directory. Thus, a Policy Management
1004 Tool that retrieves policy entries from the directory in order to
1005 perform validation and conflict detection SHOULD also understand and
1006 be capable of using the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass. All of these
1010 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
1012 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1015 requirements are "SHOULD"s rather than "MUST"s because an LDAP client
1016 that doesn't implement them can still access and retrieve the
1017 directory entries it needs. The process of doing so will just be
1018 less efficient than it would have been if the client had implemented
1019 these optimizations.
1021 When it is serving as a tool for creating policy entries in the
1022 directory, a Policy Management Tool SHOULD support creation of
1023 pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass entries and their references to object
1026 4.5.1. Aliases and Other DIT-Optimization Techniques
1028 Additional flexibility in DIT structure is available to the policy
1029 administrator via LDAP aliasing and other techniques. Previous
1030 versions of this document have used aliases. However, because
1031 aliases are experimental, the use of aliases has been removed from
1032 this version of this document. This is because the IETF has yet to
1033 produce a specification on how aliases are represented in the
1034 directory or how server implementations are to process aliases.
1036 5. Class Definitions
1038 The semantics for the policy information classes that are to be
1039 mapped directly from the information model to an LDAP representation
1040 are detailed in [1]. Consequently, all that this document presents
1041 for these classes is the specification for how to do the mapping from
1042 the information model (which is independent of repository type and
1043 access protocol) to a form that can be accessed using LDAP. Remember
1044 that some new classes needed to be created (that were not part of
1045 [1]) to implement the LDAP mapping. These new LDAP-only classes are
1046 fully documented in this document.
1048 The formal language for specifying the classes, attributes, and DIT
1049 structure and content rules is that defined in reference [3]. If
1050 your implementation does not support auxiliary class inheritance, you
1051 will have to list auxiliary classes in content rules explicitly or
1052 define them in another (implementation-specific) way.
1054 The following notes apply to this section in its entirety.
1056 Note 1: in the following definitions, the class and attribute
1057 definitions follow RFC 2252 [3] but they are line-wrapped to enhance
1060 Note 2: where applicable, the possibilities for specifying DIT
1061 structure and content rules are noted. However, care must be taken
1062 in specifying DIT structure rules. This is because X.501 [4] states
1066 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
1068 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1071 that an entry may only exist in the DIT as a subordinate to another
1072 superior entry (the superior) if a DIT structure rule exists in the
1073 governing subschema which:
1075 1) indicates a name form for the structural object class of the
1076 subordinate entry, and
1077 2) either includes the entry's superior structure rule as a possible
1078 superior structure rule, or
1079 3) does not specify a superior structure rule.
1081 If this last case (3) applies, then the entry is defined to be a
1082 subschema administrative point. This is not what is desired.
1083 Therefore, care must be taken in defining structure rules, and in
1084 particular, they must be locally augmented.
1086 Note 3: Wherever possible, both an equality and a substring matching
1087 rule are defined for a particular attribute (as well as an ordering
1088 match rule to enable sorting of matching results). This provides two
1089 different choices for the developer for maximum flexibility.
1091 For example, consider the pcimRoles attribute (section 5.3). Suppose
1092 that a PEP has reported that it is interested in pcimRules for three
1093 roles R1, R2, and R3. If the goal is to minimize queries, then the
1094 PDP can supply three substring filters containing the three role
1097 These queries will return all of the pcimRules that apply to the PEP,
1098 but they may also get some that do not apply (e.g., ones that contain
1099 one of the roles R1, R2, or R3 and one or more other roles present in
1100 a role-combination [1]).
1102 Another strategy would be for the PDP to use only equality filters.
1103 This approach eliminates the extraneous replies, but it requires the
1104 PDP to explicitly build the desired role-combinations itself. It
1105 also requires extra queries. Note that this approach is practical
1106 only because the role names in a role combination are required to
1107 appear in alphabetical order.
1109 Note 4: in the following definitions, note that all LDAP matching
1110 rules are defined in [3] and in [9]. The corresponding X.500
1111 matching rules are defined in [8].
1113 Note 5: some of the following attribute definitions specify
1114 additional constraints on various data types (e.g., this integer has
1115 values that are valid from 1..10). Text has been added to instruct
1116 servers and applications what to do if a value outside of this range
1122 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
1124 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1127 is encountered. In all cases, if a constraint is violated, then the
1128 policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled, meaning that
1129 execution of the policy rule SHOULD be stopped.
1131 5.1. The Abstract Class pcimPolicy
1133 The abstract class pcimPolicy is a direct mapping of the abstract
1134 class Policy from the PCIM. The class value "pcimPolicy" is also
1135 used as the mechanism for identifying policy-related instances in the
1136 Directory Information Tree. An instance of any class may be "tagged"
1137 with this class value by attaching to it the auxiliary class
1138 pcimElementAuxClass. Since pcimPolicy is derived from the class
1139 dlm1ManagedElement defined in reference [6], this specification has a
1140 normative dependency on that element of reference [6].
1142 The class definition is as follows:
1144 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.1 NAME 'pcimPolicy'
1145 DESC 'An abstract class that is the base class for all classes
1146 that describe policy-related instances.'
1147 SUP dlm1ManagedElement
1149 MAY ( cn $ dlmCaption $ dlmDescription $ orderedCimKeys $
1153 The attribute cn is defined in RFC 2256 [7]. The dlmCaption,
1154 dlmDescription, and orderedCimKeys attributes are defined in [6].
1156 The pcimKeywords attribute is a multi-valued attribute that contains
1157 a set of keywords to assist directory clients in locating the policy
1158 objects identified by these keywords. It is defined as follows:
1160 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.3 NAME 'pcimKeywords'
1161 DESC 'A set of keywords to assist directory clients in
1162 locating the policy objects applicable to them.'
1163 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
1164 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
1165 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
1166 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
1178 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
1180 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1183 5.2. The Three Policy Group Classes
1185 PCIM [1] defines the PolicyGroup class to serve as a generalized
1186 aggregation mechanism, enabling PolicyRules and/or PolicyGroups to be
1187 aggregated together. PCLS maps this class into three LDAP classes,
1188 called pcimGroup, pcimGroupAuxClass, and pcimGroupInstance. This is
1189 done in order to provide maximum flexibility for the DIT designer.
1191 The class definitions for the three policy group classes are listed
1192 below. These class definitions do not include attributes to realize
1193 the PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup and PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup associations
1194 from the PCIM. This is because a pcimGroup object refers to
1195 instances of pcimGroup and pcimRule via, respectively, the attribute
1196 pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet in the pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass object
1197 class and the attribute pcimRulesAuxContainedSet in the
1198 pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass object class.
1200 To maximize flexibility, the pcimGroup class is defined as abstract.
1201 The subclass pcimGroupAuxClass provides for auxiliary attachment to
1202 another entry, while the structural subclass pcimGroupInstance is
1203 available to represent a policy group as a standalone entry.
1205 The class definitions are as follows. First, the definition of the
1206 abstract class pcimGroup:
1208 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.2 NAME 'pcimGroup'
1209 DESC 'A container for a set of related pcimRules and/or
1210 a set of related pcimGroups.'
1213 MAY ( pcimGroupName )
1216 The one attribute of pcimGroup is pcimGroupName. This attribute is
1217 used to define a user-friendly name of this policy group, and may be
1218 used as a naming attribute if desired. It is defined as follows:
1220 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.4 NAME 'pcimGroupName'
1221 DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy group.'
1222 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
1223 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
1224 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
1225 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
1234 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
1236 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1239 The two subclasses of pcimGroup are defined as follows. The class
1240 pcimGroupAuxClass is an auxiliary class that can be used to collect a
1241 set of related pcimRule and/or pcimGroup classes. It is defined as
1244 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.3 NAME 'pcimGroupAuxClass'
1245 DESC 'An auxiliary class that collects a set of related
1246 pcimRule and/or pcimGroup entries.'
1251 The class pcimGroupInstance is a structural class that can be used to
1252 collect a set of related pcimRule and/or pcimGroup classes. It is
1255 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.4 NAME 'pcimGroupInstance'
1256 DESC 'A structural class that collects a set of related
1257 pcimRule and/or pcimGroup entries.'
1262 A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of
1263 pcimGroupInstance to have attached to it either references to one or
1264 more policy groups (using pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass) or references
1265 to one or more policy rules (using pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass).
1266 This would be used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyGroup
1267 class [1]. Since these semantics do not include specifying any
1268 properties of the PolicyGroup class, the content rule would not need
1269 to specify any attributes.
1271 Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written, each
1272 of which would refer to a specific name form that identified one of
1273 the three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimGroupName, cn, and
1274 orderedCIMKeys) for the pcimGroup object class. This structure rule
1275 SHOULD include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning
1276 of section 5). The three name forms referenced by the three
1277 structure rules would each define one of the three naming attributes.
1279 5.3. The Three Policy Rule Classes
1281 The information model defines a PolicyRule class to represent the "If
1282 Condition then Action" semantics associated with processing policy
1283 information. For maximum flexibility, the PCLS maps this class into
1290 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
1292 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1295 To maximize flexibility, the pcimRule class is defined as abstract.
1296 The subclass pcimRuleAuxClass provides for auxiliary attachment to
1297 another entry, while the structural subclass pcimRuleInstance is
1298 available to represent a policy rule as a standalone entry.
1300 The conditions and actions associated with a policy rule are modeled,
1301 respectively, with auxiliary subclasses of the auxiliary classes
1302 pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass. Each of these
1303 auxiliary subclasses is attached to an instance of one of three
1304 structural classes. A subclass of pcimConditionAuxClass is attached
1305 to an instance of pcimRuleInstance, to an instance of
1306 pcimRuleConditionAssociation, or to an instance of
1307 pcimPolicyInstance. Similarly, a subclass of pcimActionAuxClass is
1308 attached to an instance of pcimRuleInstance, to an instance of
1309 pcimRuleActionAssociation, or to an instance of pcimPolicyInstance.
1311 The pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute (defined below) realizes the
1312 PolicyRuleValidityPeriod association defined in the PCIM. Since this
1313 association has no additional properties besides those that tie the
1314 association to its associated objects, this association can be
1315 realized by simply using an attribute. Thus, the
1316 pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute is simply a multi-valued
1317 attribute that provides an unordered set of DN references to one or
1318 more instances of the pcimTPCAuxClass, indicating when the policy
1319 rule is scheduled to be active and when it is scheduled to be
1320 inactive. A policy rule is scheduled to be active if it is active
1321 according to AT LEAST ONE of the pcimTPCAuxClass instances referenced
1324 The PolicyConditionInPolicyRule and PolicyActionInPolicyRule
1325 associations, however, do have additional attributes. The
1326 association PolicyActionInPolicyRule defines an integer attribute to
1327 sequence the actions, and the association PolicyConditionInPolicyRule
1328 has both an integer attribute to group the condition terms as well as
1329 a Boolean property to specify whether a condition is to be negated.
1331 In the PCLS, these additional association attributes are represented
1332 as attributes of two classes introduced specifically to model these
1333 associations. These classes are the pcimRuleConditionAssociation
1334 class and the pcimRuleActionAssociation class, which are defined in
1335 Sections 5.4 and 5.5, respectively. Thus, they do not appear as
1336 attributes of the class pcimRule. Instead, the pcimRuleConditionList
1337 and pcimRuleActionList attributes can be used to reference these
1346 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
1348 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1351 The class definitions for the three pcimRule classes are as follows.
1353 The abstract class pcimRule is a base class for representing the "If
1354 Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule. It
1355 is defined as follows:
1357 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.5 NAME 'pcimRule'
1358 DESC 'The base class for representing the "If Condition
1359 then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.'
1362 MAY ( pcimRuleName $ pcimRuleEnabled $
1363 pcimRuleConditionListType $ pcimRuleConditionList $
1364 pcimRuleActionList $ pcimRuleValidityPeriodList $
1365 pcimRuleUsage $ pcimRulePriority $
1366 pcimRuleMandatory $ pcimRuleSequencedActions $
1370 The PCIM [1] defines seven properties for the PolicyRule class. The
1371 PCLS defines eleven attributes for the pcimRule class, which is the
1372 LDAP equivalent of the PolicyRule class. Of these eleven attributes,
1373 seven are mapped directly from corresponding properties in PCIM's
1374 PolicyRule class. The remaining four attributes are a class-specific
1375 optional naming attribute, and three attributes used to realize the
1376 three associations that the pcimRule class participates in.
1378 The pcimRuleName attribute is used as a user-friendly name of this
1379 policy rule, and can also serve as the class-specific optional naming
1380 attribute. It is defined as follows:
1382 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.5 NAME 'pcimRuleName'
1383 DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy rule.'
1384 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
1385 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
1386 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
1387 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
1391 The pcimRuleEnabled attribute is an integer enumeration indicating
1392 whether a policy rule is administratively enabled (value=1),
1393 administratively disabled (value=2), or enabled for debug (value=3).
1394 It is defined as follows:
1396 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.6 NAME 'pcimRuleEnabled'
1397 DESC 'An integer indicating whether a policy rule is
1398 administratively enabled (value=1), disabled
1402 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
1404 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1407 (value=2), or enabled for debug (value=3).'
1408 EQUALITY integerMatch
1409 ORDERING integerOrderingMatch
1410 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
1414 Note: All other values for the pcimRuleEnabled attribute are
1415 considered errors, and the administrator SHOULD treat this rule as
1416 being disabled if an invalid value is found.
1418 The pcimRuleConditionListType attribute is used to indicate whether
1419 the list of policy conditions associated with this policy rule is in
1420 disjunctive normal form (DNF, value=1) or conjunctive normal form
1421 (CNF, value=2). It is defined as follows:
1423 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.7 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionListType'
1424 DESC 'A value of 1 means that this policy rule is in
1425 disjunctive normal form; a value of 2 means that this
1426 policy rule is in conjunctive normal form.'
1427 EQUALITY integerMatch
1428 ORDERING integerOrderingMatch
1429 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
1433 Note: any value other than 1 or 2 for the pcimRuleConditionListType
1434 attribute is considered an error. Administrators SHOULD treat this
1435 rule as being disabled if an invalid value is found, since it is
1436 unclear how to structure the condition list.
1438 The pcimRuleConditionList attribute is a multi-valued attribute that
1439 is used to realize the policyRuleInPolicyCondition association
1440 defined in [1]. It contains a set of DNs of
1441 pcimRuleConditionAssociation entries representing associations
1442 between this policy rule and its conditions. No order is implied.
1443 It is defined as follows:
1445 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.8 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionList'
1446 DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleConditionAssociation
1447 entries representing associations between this policy
1448 rule and its conditions.'
1449 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
1450 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
1458 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
1460 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1463 The pcimRuleActionList attribute is a multi-valued attribute that is
1464 used to realize the policyRuleInPolicyAction association defined in
1465 [1]. It contains a set of DNs of pcimRuleActionAssociation entries
1466 representing associations between this policy rule and its actions.
1467 No order is implied. It is defined as follows:
1469 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.9 NAME 'pcimRuleActionList'
1470 DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleActionAssociation
1471 entries representing associations between this policy
1472 rule and its actions.'
1473 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
1474 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
1477 The pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute is a multi-valued attribute
1478 that is used to realize the pcimRuleValidityPeriod association that
1479 is defined in [1]. It contains a set of DNs of
1480 pcimRuleValidityAssociation entries that determine when the pcimRule
1481 is scheduled to be active or inactive. No order is implied. It is
1484 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.10 NAME 'pcimRuleValidityPeriodList'
1485 DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleValidityAssociation
1486 entries that determine when the pcimRule is scheduled
1487 to be active or inactive.'
1488 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
1489 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
1492 The pcimRuleUsage attribute is a free-form string providing
1493 guidelines on how this policy should be used. It is defined as
1496 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.11 NAME 'pcimRuleUsage'
1497 DESC 'This attribute is a free-form sting providing
1498 guidelines on how this policy should be used.'
1499 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
1500 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
1501 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
1502 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
1514 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
1516 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1519 The pcimRulePriority attribute is a non-negative integer that is used
1520 to prioritize this pcimRule relative to other pcimRules. A larger
1521 value indicates a higher priority. It is defined as follows:
1523 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.12 NAME 'pcimRulePriority'
1524 DESC 'A non-negative integer for prioritizing this
1525 pcimRule relative to other pcimRules. A larger
1526 value indicates a higher priority.'
1527 EQUALITY integerMatch
1528 ORDERING integerOrderingMatch
1529 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
1533 Note: if the value of the pcimRulePriority field is 0, then it SHOULD
1534 be treated as "don't care". On the other hand, if the value is
1535 negative, then it SHOULD be treated as an error and Administrators
1536 SHOULD treat this rule as being disabled.
1538 The pcimRuleMandatory attribute is a Boolean attribute that, if TRUE,
1539 indicates that for this policy rule, the evaluation of its conditions
1540 and execution of its actions (if the condition is satisfied) is
1541 required. If it is FALSE, then the evaluation of its conditions and
1542 execution of its actions (if the condition is satisfied) is not
1543 required. This attribute is defined as follows:
1545 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.13 NAME 'pcimRuleMandatory'
1546 DESC 'If TRUE, indicates that for this policy rule, the
1547 evaluation of its conditions and execution of its
1548 actions (if the condition is satisfied) is required.'
1549 EQUALITY booleanMatch
1550 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7
1554 The pcimRuleSequencedActions attribute is an integer enumeration that
1555 is used to indicate that the ordering of actions defined by the
1556 pcimActionOrder attribute is either mandatory(value=1),
1557 recommended(value=2), or dontCare(value=3). It is defined as
1560 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.14 NAME 'pcimRuleSequencedActions'
1561 DESC 'An integer enumeration indicating that the ordering of
1562 actions defined by the pcimActionOrder attribute is
1563 mandatory(1), recommended(2), or dontCare(3).'
1564 EQUALITY integerMatch
1565 ORDERING integerOrderingMatch
1570 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
1572 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1575 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
1579 Note: if the value of pcimRulesSequencedActions field is not one of
1580 these three values, then Administrators SHOULD treat this rule as
1583 The pcimRoles attribute represents the policyRoles property of [1].
1584 Each value of this attribute represents a role-combination, which is
1585 a string of the form:
1586 <RoleName>[&&<RoleName>]* where the individual role names appear
1587 in alphabetical order according to the collating sequence for UCS-2.
1588 This attribute is defined as follows:
1590 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.15 NAME 'pcimRoles'
1591 DESC 'Each value of this attribute represents a role-
1593 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
1594 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
1595 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
1596 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
1599 Note: if the value of the pcimRoles attribute does not conform to the
1600 format "<RoleName>[&&<RoleName>]*" (see Section 6.3.7 of [1]), then
1601 this attribute is malformed and its policy rule SHOULD be treated as
1604 The two subclasses of the pcimRule class are defined as follows.
1605 First, the pcimRuleAuxClass is an auxiliary class for representing
1606 the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy
1607 rule. Its class definition is as follows:
1609 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.6 NAME 'pcimRuleAuxClass'
1610 DESC 'An auxiliary class for representing the "If Condition
1611 then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.'
1616 The pcimRuleInstance is a structural class for representing the "If
1617 Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule. Its
1618 class definition is as follows:
1620 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.7 NAME 'pcimRuleInstance'
1621 DESC 'A structural class for representing the "If Condition
1622 then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.'
1626 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
1628 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1635 A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of
1636 pcimRuleInstance to have attached to it either references to one or
1637 more policy conditions (using pcimConditionAuxClass) or references to
1638 one or more policy actions (using pcimActionAuxClass). This would be
1639 used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyRule class [1]. Since
1640 these semantics do not include specifying any properties of the
1641 PolicyRule class, the content rule would not need to specify any
1644 Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written, each
1645 of which would refer to a specific name form that identified one of
1646 its three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimRuleName, cn, and
1647 orderedCIMKeys). This structure rule SHOULD include a
1648 superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5).
1649 The three name forms referenced by the three structure rules would
1650 each define one of the three naming attributes.
1652 5.4. The Class pcimRuleConditionAssociation
1654 This class contains attributes to represent the properties of the
1655 PCIM's PolicyConditionInPolicyRule association. Instances of this
1656 class are related to an instance of pcimRule via DIT containment.
1657 The policy conditions themselves are represented by auxiliary
1658 subclasses of the auxiliary class pcimConditionAuxClass. These
1659 auxiliary classes are attached directly to instances of
1660 pcimRuleConditionAssociation for rule-specific policy conditions.
1661 For a reusable policy condition, the policyCondition auxiliary
1662 subclass is attached to an instance of the class pcimPolicyInstance
1663 (which is presumably associated with a pcimRepository by DIT
1664 containment), and the policyConditionDN attribute (of this class) is
1665 used to reference the reusable policyCondition instance.
1667 The class definition is as follows:
1669 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.8 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionAssociation'
1670 DESC 'This class contains attributes characterizing the
1671 relationship between a policy rule and one of its
1674 MUST ( pcimConditionGroupNumber $ pcimConditionNegated )
1675 MAY ( pcimConditionName $ pcimConditionDN )
1682 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
1684 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1687 The attributes of this class are defined as follows.
1689 The pcimConditionGroupNumber attribute is a non-negative integer. It
1690 is used to identify the group to which the condition referenced by
1691 this association is assigned. This attribute is defined as follows:
1694 NAME 'pcimConditionGroupNumber'
1695 DESC 'The number of the group to which a policy condition
1696 belongs. This is used to form the DNF or CNF
1697 expression associated with a policy rule.'
1698 EQUALITY integerMatch
1699 ORDERING integerOrderingMatch
1700 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
1704 Note that this number is non-negative. A negative value for this
1705 attribute is invalid, and any policy rule that refers to an invalid
1706 entry SHOULD be treated as being disabled.
1708 The pcimConditionNegated attribute is a Boolean attribute that
1709 indicates whether this policy condition is to be negated or not. If
1710 it is TRUE (FALSE), it indicates that a policy condition IS (IS NOT)
1711 negated in the DNF or CNF expression associated with a policy rule.
1712 This attribute is defined as follows:
1715 NAME 'pcimConditionNegated'
1716 DESC 'If TRUE (FALSE), it indicates that a policy condition
1717 IS (IS NOT) negated in the DNF or CNF expression
1718 associated with a policy rule.'
1719 EQUALITY booleanMatch
1720 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7
1724 The pcimConditionName is a user-friendly name for identifying this
1725 policy condition, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired.
1726 This attribute is defined as follows:
1729 NAME 'pcimConditionName'
1730 DESC 'A user-friendly name for a policy condition.'
1731 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
1732 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
1733 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
1738 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
1740 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1743 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
1747 The pcimConditionDN attribute is a DN that references an instance of
1748 a reusable policy condition. This attribute is defined as follows:
1751 NAME 'pcimConditionDN'
1752 DESC 'A DN that references an instance of a reusable policy
1754 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
1755 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
1759 A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of
1760 pcimRuleConditionAssociation to have attached to it an instance of
1761 the auxiliary class pcimConditionAuxClass, or one of its subclasses.
1762 This would be used to formalize the semantics of the
1763 PolicyConditionInPolicyRule association. Specifically, this would be
1764 used to represent a rule-specific policy condition [1].
1765 Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written. Each
1766 of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that
1767 defined two important semantics. First, each name form would
1768 identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e.,
1769 pcimConditionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the
1770 pcimRuleConditionAssociation object class. Second, each name form
1771 would require that an instance of the pcimRuleConditionAssociation
1772 class have as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class. This
1773 structure rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note
1774 2 at the beginning of section 5).
1776 5.5. The Class pcimRuleValidityAssociation
1778 The policyRuleValidityPeriod aggregation is mapped to the PCLS
1779 pcimRuleValidityAssociation class. This class represents the
1780 scheduled activation and deactivation of a policy rule by binding the
1781 definition of times that the policy is active to the policy rule
1782 itself. The "scheduled" times are either identified through an
1783 attached auxiliary class pcimTPCAuxClass, or are referenced through
1784 its pcimTimePeriodConditionDN attribute.
1786 This class is defined as follows:
1788 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.9 NAME 'pcimRuleValidityAssociation'
1789 DESC 'This defines the scheduled activation or deactivation
1794 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
1796 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1801 MAY ( pcimValidityConditionName $ pcimTimePeriodConditionDN )
1804 The attributes of this class are defined as follows:
1806 The pcimValidityConditionName attribute is used to define a
1807 user-friendly name of this condition, and may be used as a naming
1808 attribute if desired. This attribute is defined as follows:
1811 NAME 'pcimValidityConditionName'
1812 DESC 'A user-friendly name for identifying an instance of
1813 a pcimRuleValidityAssociation entry.'
1814 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
1815 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
1816 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
1817 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
1821 The pcimTimePeriodConditionDN attribute is a DN that references a
1822 reusable time period condition. It is defined as follows:
1825 NAME 'pcimTimePeriodConditionDN'
1826 DESC 'A reference to a reusable policy time period
1828 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
1829 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
1833 A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of
1834 pcimRuleValidityAssociation to have attached to it an instance of the
1835 auxiliary class pcimTPCAuxClass, or one of its subclasses. This
1836 would be used to formalize the semantics of the
1837 PolicyRuleValidityPeriod aggregation [1].
1839 Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written. Each
1840 of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that
1841 defined two important semantics. First, each name form would
1842 identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e.,
1843 pcimValidityConditionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the
1844 pcimRuleValidityAssociation object class. Second, each name form
1845 would require that an instance of the pcimRuleValidityAssociation
1846 class have as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class. This
1850 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
1852 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1855 structure rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note
1856 2 at the beginning of section 5).
1858 5.6. The Class pcimRuleActionAssociation
1860 This class contains an attribute to represent the one property of the
1861 PCIM PolicyActionInPolicyRule association, ActionOrder. This
1862 property is used to specify an order for executing the actions
1863 associated with a policy rule. Instances of this class are related
1864 to an instance of pcimRule via DIT containment. The actions
1865 themselves are represented by auxiliary subclasses of the auxiliary
1866 class pcimActionAuxClass.
1868 These auxiliary classes are attached directly to instances of
1869 pcimRuleActionAssociation for rule-specific policy actions. For a
1870 reusable policy action, the pcimAction auxiliary subclass is attached
1871 to an instance of the class pcimPolicyInstance (which is presumably
1872 associated with a pcimRepository by DIT containment), and the
1873 pcimActionDN attribute (of this class) is used to reference the
1874 reusable pcimCondition instance.
1876 The class definition is as follows:
1878 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.10 NAME 'pcimRuleActionAssociation'
1879 DESC 'This class contains attributes characterizing the
1880 relationship between a policy rule and one of its
1883 MUST ( pcimActionOrder )
1884 MAY ( pcimActionName $ pcimActionDN )
1887 The pcimActionName attribute is used to define a user-friendly name
1888 of this action, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired.
1889 This attribute is defined as follows:
1892 NAME 'pcimActionName'
1893 DESC 'A user-friendly name for a policy action.'
1894 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
1895 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
1896 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
1897 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
1906 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
1908 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1911 The pcimActionOrder attribute is an unsigned integer that is used to
1912 indicate the relative position of an action in a sequence of actions
1913 that are associated with a given policy rule. When this number is
1914 positive, it indicates a place in the sequence of actions to be
1915 performed, with smaller values indicating earlier positions in the
1916 sequence. If the value is zero, then this indicates that the order
1917 is irrelevant. Note that if two or more actions have the same
1918 non-zero value, they may be performed in any order as long as they
1919 are each performed in the correct place in the overall sequence of
1920 actions. This attribute is defined as follows:
1923 NAME 'pcimActionOrder'
1924 DESC 'An integer indicating the relative order of an action
1925 in the context of a policy rule.'
1926 EQUALITY integerMatch
1927 ORDERING integerOrderingMatch
1928 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
1932 Note: if the value of the pcimActionOrder field is negative, then it
1933 SHOULD be treated as an error and any policy rule that refers to such
1934 an entry SHOULD be treated as being disabled.
1936 The pcimActionDN attribute is a DN that references a reusable policy
1937 action. It is defined as follows:
1941 DESC 'A DN that references a reusable policy action.'
1942 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
1943 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
1947 A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of
1948 pcimRuleActionAssociation to have attached to it an instance of the
1949 auxiliary class pcimActionAuxClass, or one of its subclasses. This
1950 would be used to formalize the semantics of the
1951 PolicyActionInPolicyRule association. Specifically, this would be
1952 used to represent a rule-specific policy action [1].
1954 Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written. Each
1955 of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that
1956 defined two important semantics. First, each name form would
1957 identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e.,
1958 pcimActionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the
1962 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
1964 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
1967 pcimRuleActionAssociation object class. Second, each name form would
1968 require that an instance of the pcimRuleActionAssociation class have
1969 as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class. This structure
1970 rule should also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the
1971 beginning of section 5).
1973 5.7. The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionAuxClass
1975 The purpose of a policy condition is to determine whether or not the
1976 set of actions (contained in the pcimRule that the condition applies
1977 to) should be executed or not. This class defines the basic
1978 organizational semantics of a policy condition, as specified in [1].
1979 Subclasses of this auxiliary class can be attached to instances of
1980 three other classes in the PCLS. When a subclass of this class is
1981 attached to an instance of pcimRuleConditionAssociation, or to an
1982 instance of pcimRule, it represents a rule-specific policy condition.
1983 When a subclass of this class is attached to an instance of
1984 pcimPolicyInstance, it represents a reusable policy condition.
1986 Since all of the classes to which subclasses of this auxiliary class
1987 may be attached are derived from the pcimPolicy class, the attributes
1988 of pcimPolicy will already be defined for the entries to which these
1989 subclasses attach. Thus, this class is derived directly from "top".
1991 The class definition is as follows:
1993 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.11 NAME 'pcimConditionAuxClass'
1994 DESC 'A class representing a condition to be evaluated in
1995 conjunction with a policy rule.'
2000 5.8. The Auxiliary Class pcimTPCAuxClass
2002 The PCIM defines a time period class, PolicyTimePeriodCondition, to
2003 provide a means of representing the time periods during which a
2004 policy rule is valid, i.e., active. It also defines an aggregation,
2005 PolicyRuleValidityPeriod, so that time periods can be associated with
2006 a PolicyRule. The LDAP mapping also provides two classes, one for
2007 the time condition itself, and one for the aggregation.
2009 In the PCIM, the time period class is named
2010 PolicyTimePeriodCondition. However, the resulting name of the
2011 auxiliary class in this mapping (pcimTimePeriodConditionAuxClass)
2012 exceeds the length of a name that some directories can store.
2013 Therefore, the name has been shortened to pcimTPCAuxClass.
2018 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
2020 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2023 The class definition is as follows:
2025 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.12 NAME 'pcimTPCAuxClass'
2026 DESC 'This provides the capability of enabling or disabling
2027 a policy rule according to a predetermined schedule.'
2028 SUP pcimConditionAuxClass
2030 MAY ( pcimTPCTime $ pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask $
2031 pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask $ pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask $
2032 pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask $ pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime )
2035 The attributes of the pcimTPCAuxClass are defined as follows.
2037 The pcimTPCTime attribute represents the time period that a policy
2038 rule is enabled for. This attribute is defined as a string in [1]
2039 with a special format which defines a time period with a starting
2040 date and an ending date separated by a forward slash ("/"), as
2043 yyyymmddThhmmss/yyyymmddThhmmss
2045 where the first date and time may be replaced with the string
2046 "THISANDPRIOR" or the second date and time may be replaced with the
2047 string "THISANDFUTURE". This attribute is defined as follows:
2051 DESC 'The start and end times on which a policy rule is
2053 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
2054 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
2055 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
2056 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44
2060 The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined
2061 format ("yyyymmddThhmmss/yyyymmddThhmmss", where the first and second
2062 date strings may be replaced with the strings "THISANDPRIOR" and
2063 "THISANDFUTURE"). If the value of this attribute does not conform to
2064 this syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy
2065 rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled.
2067 The next four attributes (pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask,
2068 pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask, pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask, and
2069 pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask) are all defined as octet strings in [1].
2070 However, the semantics of each of these attributes are contained in
2074 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
2076 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2079 bit strings of various fixed lengths. Therefore, the PCLS uses a
2080 syntax of Bit String to represent each of them. The definition of
2081 these four attributes are as follows.
2083 The pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask attribute defines a 12-bit mask
2084 identifying the months of the year in which a policy rule is valid.
2085 The format is a bit string of length 12, representing the months of
2086 the year from January through December. The definition of this
2087 attribute is as follows:
2090 NAME 'pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask'
2091 DESC 'This identifies the valid months of the year for a
2092 policy rule using a 12-bit string that represents the
2093 months of the year from January through December.'
2094 EQUALITY bitStringMatch
2095 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6
2099 The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined
2100 format. If the value of this attribute does not conform to this
2101 syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule
2102 SHOULD be treated as being disabled.
2104 The pcimTPCMonthOfDayMask attribute defines a mask identifying the
2105 days of the month on which a policy rule is valid. The format is a
2106 bit string of length 62. The first 31 positions represent the days
2107 of the month in ascending order, from day 1 to day 31. The next 31
2108 positions represent the days of the month in descending order, from
2109 the last day to the day 31 days from the end. The definition of this
2110 attribute is as follows:
2113 NAME 'pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask'
2114 DESC 'This identifies the valid days of the month for a
2115 policy rule using a 62-bit string. The first 31
2116 positions represent the days of the month in ascending
2117 order, and the next 31 positions represent the days of
2118 the month in descending order.'
2119 EQUALITY bitStringMatch
2120 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6
2130 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
2132 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2135 The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined
2136 format. If the value of this attribute does not conform to this
2137 syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule
2138 SHOULD be treated as being disabled.
2140 The pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask attribute defines a mask identifying the
2141 days of the week on which a policy rule is valid. The format is a
2142 bit string of length 7, representing the days of the week from Sunday
2143 through Saturday. The definition of this attribute is as follows:
2146 NAME 'pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask'
2147 DESC 'This identifies the valid days of the week for a
2148 policy rule using a 7-bit string. This represents
2149 the days of the week from Sunday through Saturday.'
2150 EQUALITY bitStringMatch
2151 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6
2155 The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined
2156 format. If the value of this attribute does not conform to this
2157 syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule
2158 SHOULD be treated as being disabled.
2160 The pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask attribute defines the range of times at
2161 which a policy rule is valid. If the second time is earlier than the
2162 first, then the interval spans midnight. The format of the string is
2163 Thhmmss/Thhmmss. The definition of this attribute is as follows:
2166 NAME 'pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask'
2167 DESC 'This identifies the valid range of times for a policy
2168 using the format Thhmmss/Thhmmss.'
2169 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
2170 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
2171 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
2172 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44
2176 The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined
2177 format. If the value of this attribute does not conform to this
2178 syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule
2179 SHOULD be treated as being disabled.
2186 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
2188 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2191 Finally, the pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime attribute is used to choose
2192 between local or UTC time representation. This is mapped as a simple
2193 integer syntax, with the value of 1 representing local time and the
2194 value of 2 representing UTC time. The definition of this attribute
2198 NAME 'pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime'
2199 DESC 'This defines whether the times in this instance
2200 represent local (value=1) times or UTC (value=2)
2202 EQUALITY integerMatch
2203 ORDERING integerOrderingMatch
2204 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
2208 Note: if the value of the pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime is not 1 or 2, then
2209 this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule SHOULD be
2210 disabled. If the attribute is not present at all, then all times are
2211 interpreted as if it were present with the value 2, that is, UTC
2214 5.9. The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionVendorAuxClass
2216 This class provides a general extension mechanism for representing
2217 policy conditions that have not been modeled with specific
2218 properties. Instead, its two properties are used to define the
2219 content and format of the condition, as explained below. This class
2220 is intended for vendor-specific extensions that are not amenable to
2221 using pcimCondition; standardized extensions SHOULD NOT use this
2224 The class definition is as follows:
2226 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.13 NAME 'pcimConditionVendorAuxClass'
2227 DESC 'A class that defines a registered means to describe a
2229 SUP pcimConditionAuxClass
2231 MAY ( pcimVendorConstraintData $
2232 pcimVendorConstraintEncoding )
2235 The pcimVendorConstraintData attribute is a multi-valued attribute.
2236 It provides a general mechanism for representing policy conditions
2237 that have not been modeled as specific attributes. This information
2238 is encoded in a set of octet strings. The format of the octet
2242 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
2244 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2247 strings is identified by the OID stored in the
2248 pcimVendorConstraintEncoding attribute. This attribute is defined as
2252 NAME 'pcimVendorConstraintData'
2253 DESC 'Mechanism for representing constraints that have not
2254 been modeled as specific attributes. Their format is
2255 identified by the OID stored in the attribute
2256 pcimVendorConstraintEncoding.'
2257 EQUALITY octetStringMatch
2258 ORDERING octetStringOrderingMatch
2259 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40
2262 The pcimVendorConstraintEncoding attribute is used to identify the
2263 format and semantics for the pcimVendorConstraintData attribute.
2264 This attribute is defined as follows:
2267 NAME 'pcimVendorConstraintEncoding'
2268 DESC 'An OID identifying the format and semantics for the
2269 pcimVendorConstraintData for this instance.'
2270 EQUALITY objectIdentifierMatch
2271 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38
2275 5.10. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionAuxClass
2277 The purpose of a policy action is to execute one or more operations
2278 that will affect network traffic and/or systems, devices, etc. in
2279 order to achieve a desired policy state. This class is used to
2280 represent an action to be performed as a result of a policy rule
2281 whose condition clause was satisfied.
2283 Subclasses of this auxiliary class can be attached to instances of
2284 three other classes in the PCLS. When a subclass of this class is
2285 attached to an instance of pcimRuleActionAssociation, or to an
2286 instance of pcimRule, it represents a rule-specific policy action.
2287 When a subclass of this class is attached to an instance of
2288 pcimPolicyInstance, it represents a reusable policy action.
2290 Since all of the classes to which subclasses of this auxiliary class
2291 may be attached are derived from the pcimPolicy class, the attributes
2292 of the pcimPolicy class will already be defined for the entries to
2293 which these subclasses attach. Thus, this class is derived directly
2298 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
2300 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2303 The class definition is as follows:
2305 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.14 NAME 'pcimActionAuxClass'
2306 DESC 'A class representing an action to be performed as a
2307 result of a policy rule.'
2312 5.11. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionVendorAuxClass
2314 The purpose of this class is to provide a general extension mechanism
2315 for representing policy actions that have not been modeled with
2316 specific properties. Instead, its two properties are used to define
2317 the content and format of the action, as explained below.
2319 As its name suggests, this class is intended for vendor-specific
2320 extensions that are not amenable to using the standard pcimAction
2321 class. Standardized extensions SHOULD NOT use this class.
2323 The class definition is as follows:
2325 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.15 NAME 'pcimActionVendorAuxClass'
2326 DESC 'A class that defines a registered means to describe a
2328 SUP pcimActionAuxClass
2330 MAY ( pcimVendorActionData $ pcimVendorActionEncoding )
2333 The pcimVendorActionData attribute is a multi-valued attribute. It
2334 provides a general mechanism for representing policy actions that
2335 have not been modeled as specific attributes. This information is
2336 encoded in a set of octet strings. The format of the octet strings
2337 is identified by the OID stored in the pcimVendorActionEncoding
2338 attribute. This attribute is defined as follows:
2341 NAME 'pcimVendorActionData'
2342 DESC ' Mechanism for representing policy actions that have
2343 not been modeled as specific attributes. Their
2344 format is identified by the OID stored in the
2345 attribute pcimVendorActionEncoding.'
2346 EQUALITY octetStringMatch
2347 ORDERING octetStringOrderingMatch
2348 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40
2354 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
2356 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2359 The pcimVendorActionEncoding attribute is used to identify the format
2360 and semantics for the pcimVendorActionData attribute. This attribute
2361 is defined as follows:
2364 NAME 'pcimVendorActionEncoding'
2365 DESC 'An OID identifying the format and semantics for the
2366 pcimVendorActionData attribute of this instance.'
2367 EQUALITY objectIdentifierMatch
2368 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38
2372 5.12. The Class pcimPolicyInstance
2374 This class is not defined in the PCIM. Its role is to serve as a
2375 structural class to which auxiliary classes representing policy
2376 information are attached when the information is reusable. For
2377 auxiliary classes representing policy conditions and policy actions,
2378 there are alternative structural classes that may be used. See
2379 Section 4.4 for a complete discussion of reusable policy conditions
2380 and actions, and of the role that this class plays in how they are
2383 The class definition is as follows:
2385 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.16 NAME 'pcimPolicyInstance'
2386 DESC 'A structural class to which aux classes containing
2387 reusable policy information can be attached.'
2389 MAY ( pcimPolicyInstanceName )
2392 The pcimPolicyInstanceName attribute is used to define a
2393 user-friendly name of this class, and may be used as a naming
2394 attribute if desired. It is defined as follows:
2396 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.35 NAME 'pcimPolicyInstanceName'
2397 DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy instance.'
2398 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
2399 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
2400 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
2401 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
2410 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
2412 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2415 A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of
2416 pcimPolicyInstance to have attached to it either instances of one or
2417 more of the auxiliary object classes pcimConditionAuxClass and
2418 pcimActionAuxClass. Since these semantics do not include specifying
2419 any properties, the content rule would not need to specify any
2420 attributes. Note that other content rules could be defined to enable
2421 other policy-related auxiliary classes to be attached to
2424 Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written. Each
2425 of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that
2426 defined two important semantics. First, each name form would
2427 identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e.,
2428 pcimPolicyInstanceName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for this object
2429 class. Second, each name form would require that an instance of the
2430 pcimPolicyInstance class have as its superior an instance of the
2431 pcimRepository class. This structure rule SHOULD also include a
2432 superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5).
2434 5.13. The Auxiliary Class pcimElementAuxClass
2436 This class introduces no additional attributes, beyond those defined
2437 in the class pcimPolicy from which it is derived. Its role is to
2438 "tag" an instance of a class defined outside the realm of policy
2439 information as represented by PCIM as being nevertheless relevant to
2440 a policy specification. This tagging can potentially take place at
2443 - Every instance to which pcimElementAuxClass is attached becomes
2444 an instance of the class pcimPolicy, since pcimElementAuxClass is
2445 a subclass of pcimPolicy. Searching for object
2446 class="pcimPolicy" will return the instance. (As noted earlier,
2447 this approach does NOT work for some directory implementations.
2448 To accommodate these implementations, policy-related entries
2449 SHOULD be tagged with the pcimKeyword "POLICY".)
2451 - With the pcimKeywords attribute that it inherits from pcimPolicy,
2452 an instance to which pcimElementAuxClass is attached can be
2453 tagged as being relevant to a particular type or category of
2454 policy information, using standard keywords,
2455 administrator-defined keywords, or both.
2457 The class definition is as follows:
2459 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.17 NAME 'pcimElementAuxClass'
2460 DESC 'An auxiliary class used to tag instances of classes
2461 defined outside the realm of policy as relevant to a
2462 particular policy specification.'
2466 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
2468 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2475 5.14. The Three Policy Repository Classes
2477 These classes provide a container for reusable policy information,
2478 such as reusable policy conditions and/or reusable policy actions.
2479 This document is concerned with mapping just the properties that
2480 appear in these classes. Conceptually, this may be thought of as a
2481 special location in the DIT where policy information may reside.
2482 Since pcimRepository is derived from the class dlm1AdminDomain
2483 defined in reference [6], this specification has a normative
2484 dependency on that element of reference [6] (as well as on its entire
2485 derivation hierarchy, which also appears in reference [6]). To
2486 maximize flexibility, the pcimRepository class is defined as
2487 abstract. A subclass pcimRepositoryAuxClass provides for auxiliary
2488 attachment to another entry, while a structural subclass
2489 pcimRepositoryInstance is available to represent a policy repository
2490 as a standalone entry.
2492 The definition for the pcimRepository class is as follows:
2494 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.18 NAME 'pcimRepository'
2495 DESC 'A container for reusable policy information.'
2498 MAY ( pcimRepositoryName )
2501 The pcimRepositoryName attribute is used to define a user-friendly
2502 name of this class, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired.
2503 It is defined as follows:
2505 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.36 NAME 'pcimRepositoryName'
2506 DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy repository.'
2507 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
2508 ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch
2509 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
2510 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
2522 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
2524 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2527 The two subclasses of pcimRepository are defined as follows. First,
2528 the pcimRepositoryAuxClass is an auxiliary class that can be used to
2529 aggregate reusable policy information. It is defined as follows:
2531 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.19 NAME 'pcimRepositoryAuxClass'
2532 DESC 'An auxiliary class that can be used to aggregate
2533 reusable policy information.'
2538 In cases where structural classes are needed instead of an auxiliary
2539 class, the pcimRepositoryInstance class is a structural class that
2540 can be used to aggregate reusable policy information. It is defined
2543 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.20 NAME 'pcimRepositoryInstance'
2544 DESC 'A structural class that can be used to aggregate
2545 reusable policy information.'
2550 Three separate DIT structure rules could be written for this class.
2551 Each of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form
2552 that enabled an instance of the pcimRepository class to be named
2553 under any superior using one of the three possible naming attributes
2554 (i.e., pcimRepositoryName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys). This structure
2555 rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the
2556 beginning of section 5).
2558 5.15. The Auxiliary Class pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass
2560 This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that
2561 references a set of objects that are at the root of DIT subtrees
2562 containing policy-related information. By attaching this attribute
2563 to instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a
2564 flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that
2565 allows a client to locate and retrieve the policy information
2568 It is intended that these entries are placed in the DIT such that
2569 well-known DNs can be used to reference a well-known structural entry
2570 that has the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass attached to it. In effect, this
2571 defines a set of entry points. Each of these entry points can
2572 contain and/or reference all related policy entries for
2578 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
2580 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2583 any well-known policy domains. The pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass functions
2584 as a tag to identify portions of the DIT that contain policy
2587 This object does not provide the semantic linkages between individual
2588 policy objects, such as those between a policy group and the policy
2589 rules that belong to it. Its only role is to enable efficient bulk
2590 retrieval of policy-related objects, as described in Section 4.5.
2592 Once the objects have been retrieved, a directory client can
2593 determine the semantic linkages by following references contained in
2594 multi-valued attributes, such as pcimRulesAuxContainedSet.
2596 Since policy-related objects will often be included in the DIT
2597 subtree beneath an object to which this auxiliary class is attached,
2598 a client SHOULD request the policy-related objects from the subtree
2599 under the object with these references at the same time that it
2600 requests the references themselves.
2602 Since clients are expected to behave in this way, the policy
2603 administrator SHOULD make sure that this subtree does not contain so
2604 many objects unrelated to policy that an initial search done in this
2605 way results in a performance problem. The pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass
2606 SHOULD NOT be attached to the partition root for a large directory
2607 partition containing a relatively few number of policy-related
2608 objects along with a large number of objects unrelated to policy
2609 (again, "policy" here refers to the PCIM, not the X.501, definition
2610 and use of "policy"). A better approach would be to introduce a
2611 container object immediately below the partition root, attach
2612 pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass to this container object, and then place all
2613 of the policy-related objects in that subtree.
2615 The class definition is as follows:
2617 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.21 NAME 'pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass'
2618 DESC 'An auxiliary class providing DN references to roots of
2619 DIT subtrees containing policy-related objects.'
2622 MAY ( pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet )
2634 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
2636 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2639 The attribute pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set
2640 of DN references to instances of one or more objects under which
2641 policy-related information is present. The objects referenced may or
2642 may not themselves contain policy-related information. The attribute
2643 definition is as follows:
2646 NAME 'pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet'
2647 DESC 'DNs of objects that serve as roots for DIT subtrees
2648 containing policy-related objects.'
2649 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
2650 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
2653 Note that the cn attribute does NOT need to be defined for this
2654 class. This is because an auxiliary class is used as a means to
2655 collect common attributes and treat them as properties of an object.
2656 A good analogy is a #include file, except that since an auxiliary
2657 class is a class, all the benefits of a class (e.g., inheritance) can
2658 be applied to an auxiliary class.
2660 5.16. The Auxiliary Class pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass
2662 This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that
2663 references a set of pcimGroups. By attaching this attribute to
2664 instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a
2665 flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that
2666 allows a client to locate and retrieve the pcimGroups relevant to it.
2668 As is the case with pcimRules, a policy administrator might have
2669 several different references to a pcimGroup in the overall directory
2670 structure. The pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass is the mechanism that
2671 makes it possible for the policy administrator to define all these
2672 different references.
2674 The class definition is as follows:
2676 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.22 NAME 'pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass'
2677 DESC 'An auxiliary class used to bind pcimGroups to an
2678 appropriate container object.'
2681 MAY ( pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet )
2690 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
2692 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2695 The attribute pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set of
2696 references to instances of one or more pcimGroups associated with the
2697 instance of a structural class to which this attribute has been
2700 The attribute definition is as follows:
2703 NAME 'pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet'
2704 DESC 'DNs of pcimGroups associated in some way with the
2705 instance to which this attribute has been appended.'
2706 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
2707 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
2710 Note that the cn attribute does NOT have to be defined for this class
2711 for the same reasons as those given for the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass
2714 5.17. The Auxiliary Class pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass
2716 This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that
2717 references a set of pcimRules. By attaching this attribute to
2718 instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a
2719 flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that
2720 allows a client to locate and retrieve the pcimRules relevant to it.
2722 A policy administrator might have several different references to a
2723 pcimRule in the overall directory structure. For example, there
2724 might be references to all pcimRules for traffic originating in a
2725 particular subnet from a directory entry that represents that subnet.
2726 At the same time, there might be references to all pcimRules related
2727 to a particular DiffServ setting from an instance of a pcimGroup
2728 explicitly introduced as a container for DiffServ-related pcimRules.
2729 The pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass is the mechanism that makes it
2730 possible for the policy administrator to define all these separate
2733 The class definition is as follows:
2735 ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.23 NAME 'pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass'
2736 DESC 'An auxiliary class used to bind pcimRules to an
2737 appropriate container object.'
2740 MAY ( pcimRulesAuxContainedSet )
2746 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
2748 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2751 The attribute pcimRulesAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set of
2752 references to one or more instances of pcimRules associated with the
2753 instance of a structural class to which this attribute has been
2754 appended. The attribute definition is as follows:
2757 NAME 'pcimRulesAuxContainedSet'
2758 DESC 'DNs of pcimRules associated in some way with the
2759 instance to which this attribute has been appended.'
2760 EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
2761 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
2764 The cn attribute does NOT have to be defined for this class for the
2765 same reasons as those given for the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass in
2768 6. Extending the Classes Defined in This Document
2770 The following subsections provide general guidance on how to create a
2771 domain-specific schema derived from this document, discuss how the
2772 vendor classes in the PCLS should be used, and explain how
2773 policyTimePeriodConditions are related to other policy conditions.
2775 6.1. Subclassing pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass
2777 In Section 4.4, there is a discussion of how, by representing policy
2778 conditions and policy actions as auxiliary classes in a schema, the
2779 flexibility is retained to instantiate a particular condition or
2780 action as either rule-specific or reusable. This flexibility is lost
2781 if a condition or action class is defined as structural rather than
2782 auxiliary. For standardized schemata, this document specifies that
2783 domain-specific information MUST be expressed in auxiliary subclasses
2784 of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass. It is RECOMMENDED
2785 that non-standardized schemata follow this practice as well.
2787 6.2. Using the Vendor Policy Attributes
2789 As discussed Section 5.9, the attributes pcimVendorConstraintData and
2790 pcimVendorConstraintEncoding are included in the
2791 pcimConditionVendorAuxClass to provide a mechanism for representing
2792 vendor-specific policy conditions that are not amenable to being
2793 represented with the pcimCondition class (or its subclasses). The
2794 attributes pcimVendorActionData and pcimVendorActionEncoding in the
2795 pcimActionVendorAuxClass class play the same role with respect to
2796 actions. This enables interoperability between different vendors who
2797 could not otherwise interoperate.
2802 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
2804 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2807 For example, imagine a network composed of access devices from vendor
2808 A, edge and core devices from vendor B, and a policy server from
2809 vendor C. It is desirable for this policy server to be able to
2810 configure and manage all of the devices from vendors A and B.
2811 Unfortunately, these devices will in general have little in common
2812 (e.g., different mechanisms, different ways for controlling those
2813 mechanisms, different operating systems, different commands, and so
2814 forth). The extension conditions provide a way for vendor-specific
2815 commands to be encoded as octet strings, so that a single policy
2816 server can commonly manage devices from different vendors.
2818 6.3. Using Time Validity Periods
2820 Time validity periods are defined as an auxiliary subclass of
2821 pcimConditionAuxClass, called pcimTPCAuxClass. This is to allow
2822 their inclusion in the AND/OR condition definitions for a pcimRule.
2823 Care should be taken not to subclass pcimTPCAuxClass to add
2824 domain-specific condition properties.
2826 For example, it would be incorrect to add IPsec- or QoS-specific
2827 condition properties to the pcimTPCAuxClass class, just because IPsec
2828 or QoS includes time in its condition definition. The correct
2829 subclassing would be to create IPsec or QoS-specific subclasses of
2830 pcimConditionAuxClass and then combine instances of these
2831 domain-specific condition classes with the appropriate validity
2832 period criteria. This is accomplished using the AND/OR association
2833 capabilities for policy conditions in pcimRules.
2835 7. Security Considerations
2837 The PCLS, presented in this document, provides a mapping of the
2838 object-oriented model for describing policy information (PCIM) into a
2839 data model that forms the basic framework for describing the
2840 structure of policy data, in the case where the policy repository
2841 takes the form of an LDAP-accessible directory.
2843 PCLS is not intended to represent any particular system design or
2844 implementation. PCLS is not directly useable in a real world system,
2845 without the discipline-specific mappings that are works in progress
2846 in the Policy Framework Working Group of the IETF.
2848 These other derivative documents, which use PCIM and its
2849 discipline-specific extensions as a base, will need to convey more
2850 specific security considerations (refer to RFC 3060 for more
2858 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
2860 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2863 The reason that PCLS, as defined here, is not representative of any
2864 real-world system, is that its object classes were designed to be
2865 independent of any specific discipline, or policy domain. For
2866 example, DiffServ and IPsec represent two different policy domains.
2867 Each document that extends PCIM to one of these domains will derive
2868 subclasses from the classes and relationships defined in PCIM, in
2869 order to represent extensions of a generic model to cover specific
2872 PCIM-derived documents will thus subclass the PCIM classes into
2873 classes specific to each technical policy domain (QOS, IPsec, etc.),
2874 which will, in turn, be mapped, to directory-specific schemata
2875 consistent with the PCLS documented here.
2877 Even though discipline-specific security requirements are not
2878 appropriate for PCLS, specific security requirements MUST be defined
2879 for each operational real-world application of PCIM. Just as there
2880 will be a wide range of operational, real-world systems using PCIM,
2881 there will also be a wide range of security requirements for these
2882 systems. Some operational, real-world systems that are deployed
2883 using PCLS may have extensive security requirements that impact
2884 nearly all object classes utilized by such a system, while other
2885 systems' security requirements might have very little impact.
2887 The derivative documents, discussed above, will create the context
2888 for applying operational, real-world, system-level security
2889 requirements against the various models that derive from PCIM,
2890 consistent with PCLS.
2892 In some real-world scenarios, the values associated with certain
2893 properties, within certain instantiated object classes, may represent
2894 information associated with scarce, and/or costly (and therefore
2895 valuable) resources. It may be the case that these values must not
2896 be disclosed to, or manipulated by, unauthorized parties.
2898 Since this document forms the basis for the representation of a
2899 policy data model in a specific format (an LDAP-accessible
2900 directory), it is herein appropriate to reference the data
2901 model-specific tools and mechanisms that are available for achieving
2902 the authentication and authorization implicit in a requirement that
2903 restricts read and/or read- write access to these values stored in a
2914 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
2916 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2919 General LDAP security considerations apply, as documented in RFC 3377
2920 [2]. LDAP-specific authentication and authorization tools and
2921 mechanisms are found in the following standards track documents,
2922 which are appropriate for application to the management of security
2923 applied to policy data models stored in an LDAP-accessible directory:
2925 - RFC 2829 (Authentication Methods for LDAP)
2926 - RFC 2830 (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension
2927 for Transport Layer Security)
2929 Any identified security requirements that are not dealt with in the
2930 appropriate discipline-specific information model documents, or in
2931 this document, MUST be dealt with in the derivative data model
2932 documents which are specific to each discipline.
2934 8. IANA Considerations
2936 Refer to RFC 3383, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
2937 Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)"
2940 8.1. Object Identifiers
2942 The IANA has registered an LDAP Object Identifier for use in this
2943 technical specification according to the following template:
2945 Subject: Request for LDAP OID Registration
2946 Person & email address to contact for further information:
2947 Bob Moore (remoore@us.ibm.com)
2948 Specification: RFC 3703
2949 Author/Change Controller: IESG
2951 The assigned OID will be used as a base for identifying
2952 a number of schema elements defined in this document.
2954 IANA has assigned an OID of 1.3.6.1.1.6 with the name of pcimSchema
2955 to this registration as recorded in the following registry:
2957 http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
2959 8.2. Object Identifier Descriptors
2961 The IANA has registered the LDAP Descriptors used in this technical
2962 specification as detailed in the following template:
2964 Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration Update
2965 Descriptor (short name): see comment
2966 Object Identifier: see comment
2970 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
2972 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
2975 Person & email address to contact for further information:
2976 Bob Moore (remoore@us.ibm.com)
2978 Specification: RFC 3703
2979 Author/Change Controller: IESG
2982 The following descriptors have been added:
2985 -------------- ---- ------------
2986 pcimPolicy O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.1
2987 pcimGroup O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.2
2988 pcimGroupAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.3
2989 pcimGroupInstance O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.4
2990 pcimRule O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.5
2991 pcimRuleAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.6
2992 pcimRuleInstance O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.7
2993 pcimRuleConditionAssociation O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.8
2994 pcimRuleValidityAssociation O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.9
2995 pcimRuleActionAssociation O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.10
2996 pcimConditionAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.11
2997 pcimTPCAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.12
2998 pcimConditionVendorAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.13
2999 pcimActionAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.14
3000 pcimActionVendorAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.15
3001 pcimPolicyInstance O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.16
3002 pcimElementAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.17
3003 pcimRepository O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.18
3004 pcimRepositoryAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.19
3005 pcimRepositoryInstance O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.20
3006 pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.21
3007 pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.22
3008 pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass O 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.23
3009 pcimKeywords A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.3
3010 pcimGroupName A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.4
3011 pcimRuleName A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.5
3012 pcimRuleEnabled A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.6
3013 pcimRuleConditionListType A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.7
3014 pcimRuleConditionList A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.8
3015 pcimRuleActionList A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.9
3016 pcimRuleValidityPeriodList A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.10
3017 pcimRuleUsage A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.11
3018 pcimRulePriority A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.12
3019 pcimRuleMandatory A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.13
3020 pcimRuleSequencedActions A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.14
3021 pcimRoles A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.15
3022 pcimConditionGroupNumber A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.16
3026 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
3028 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
3032 -------------- ---- ------------
3033 pcimConditionNegated A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.17
3034 pcimConditionName A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.18
3035 pcimConditionDN A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.19
3036 pcimValidityConditionName A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.20
3037 pcimTimePeriodConditionDN A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.21
3038 pcimActionName A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.22
3039 pcimActionOrder A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.23
3040 pcimActionDN A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.24
3041 pcimTPCTime A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.25
3042 pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.26
3043 pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.27
3044 pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.28
3045 pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.29
3046 pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.30
3047 pcimVendorConstraintData A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.31
3048 pcimVendorConstraintEncoding A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.32
3049 pcimVendorActionData A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.33
3050 pcimVendorActionEncoding A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.34
3051 pcimPolicyInstanceName A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.35
3052 pcimRepositoryName A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.36
3053 pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.37
3054 pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.38
3055 pcimRulesAuxContainedSet A 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.39
3057 where Type A is Attribute, Type O is ObjectClass
3059 These assignments are recorded in the following registry:
3061 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldap-parameters
3082 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
3084 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
3089 We would like to thank Kurt Zeilenga, Roland Hedburg, and Steven Legg
3090 for doing a review of this document and making many helpful
3091 suggestions and corrections.
3093 Several of the policy classes in this model first appeared in early
3094 IETF drafts on IPsec policy and QoS policy. The authors of these
3095 drafts were Partha Bhattacharya, Rob Adams, William Dixon, Roy
3096 Pereira, Raju Rajan, Jean-Christophe Martin, Sanjay Kamat, Michael
3097 See, Rajiv Chaudhury, Dinesh Verma, George Powers, and Raj Yavatkar.
3099 This document is closely aligned with the work being done in the
3100 Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) Policy and Networks working
3101 groups. We would especially like to thank Lee Rafalow, Glenn Waters,
3102 David Black, Michael Richardson, Mark Stevens, David Jones, Hugh
3103 Mahon, Yoram Snir, and Yoram Ramberg for their helpful comments.
3138 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
3140 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
3143 10. Appendix: Constructing the Value of orderedCIMKeys
3145 This appendix is non-normative, and is included in this document as a
3146 guide to implementers that wish to exchange information between CIM
3147 schemata and LDAP schemata.
3149 Within a CIM name space, the naming is basically flat; all instances
3150 are identified by the values of their key properties, and each
3151 combination of key values must be unique. A limited form of
3152 hierarchical naming is available in CIM, however, by using weak
3153 associations: since a weak association involves propagation of key
3154 properties and their values from the superior object to the
3155 subordinate one, the subordinate object can be thought of as being
3156 named "under" the superior object. Once they have been propagated,
3157 however, propagated key properties and their values function in
3158 exactly the same way that native key properties and their values do
3159 in identifying a CIM instance.
3161 The CIM mapping document [6] introduces a special attribute,
3162 orderedCIMKeys, to help map from the CIM_ManagedElement class to the
3163 LDAP class dlm1ManagedElement. This attribute SHOULD only be used in
3164 an environment where it is necessary to map between an
3165 LDAP-accessible directory and a CIM repository. For an LDAP
3166 environment, other LDAP naming attributes are defined (i.e., cn and a
3167 class-specific naming attribute) that SHOULD be used instead.
3169 The role of orderedCIMKeys is to represent the information necessary
3170 to correlate an entry in an LDAP-accessible directory with an
3171 instance in a CIM name space. Depending on how naming of CIM-related
3172 entries is handled in an LDAP directory, the value of orderedCIMKeys
3173 represents one of two things:
3175 - If the DIT hierarchy does not mirror the "weakness hierarchy" of
3176 the CIM name space, then orderedCIMKeys represents all the
3177 keys of the CIM instance, both native and propagated.
3178 - If the DIT hierarchy does mirror the "weakness hierarchy" of the
3179 CIM name space, then orderedCIMKeys may represent either all the
3180 keys of the instance, or only the native keys.
3182 Regardless of which of these alternatives is taken, the syntax of
3183 orderedCIMKeys is the same - a DirectoryString of the form
3185 <className>.<key>=<value>[,<key>=<value>]*
3187 where the <key>=<value> elements are ordered by the names of the key
3188 properties, according to the collating sequence for US ASCII. The
3189 only spaces allowed in the DirectoryString are those that fall within
3190 a <value> element. As with alphabetizing the key properties, the
3194 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
3196 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
3199 goal of suppressing the spaces is once again to make the results of
3200 string operations predictable.
3202 The values of the <value> elements are derived from the various CIM
3203 syntaxes according to a grammar specified in [5].
3207 11.1. Normative References
3209 [1] Moore, B., Ellesson,E., Strassner, J. and A. Westerinen "Policy
3210 Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification", RFC 3060,
3213 [2] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
3214 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September
3217 [3] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes,T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight
3218 Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions",
3219 RFC 2252, December 1997.
3221 [4] The Directory: Models. ITU-T Recommendation X.501, 2001.
3223 [5] Distributed Management Task Force, Inc., "Common Information
3224 Model (CIM) Specification", Version 2.2, June 14, 1999. This
3225 document is available on the following DMTF web page:
3226 http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/CIM/DSP0004.pdf
3228 [6] Distributed Management Task Force, Inc., "DMTF LDAP Schema for
3229 the CIM v2.5 Core Information Model", April 15, 2002. This
3230 document is available on the following DMTF web page:
3231 http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/DEN/DSP0123.pdf
3233 [7] Wahl, M., "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use with
3234 LDAPv3", RFC 2256, December 1997.
3236 [8] The Directory: Selected Attribute Types. ITU-T Recommendation
3239 [9] Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
3240 (LDAP): Additional Matching Rules", RFC 3698, February 2004.
3242 [10] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
3243 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
3250 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
3252 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
3255 11.2. Informative References
3257 [11] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the
3258 IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.
3260 [12] Strassner, J., policy architecture BOF presentation, 42nd IETF
3261 Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, October 1998. Minutes of this BOF
3262 are available at the following location:
3263 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/index.html.
3265 [13] Yavatkar, R., Guerin, R. and D. Pendarakis, "A Framework for
3266 Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000.
3268 [14] Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J. and R. Morgan,
3269 "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000
3271 [15] Hodges, J., Morgan, R. and M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory
3272 Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security",
3275 [16] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
3276 Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
3277 (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002.
3306 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
3308 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
3311 12. Authors' Addresses
3314 Intelliden Corporation
3315 90 South Cascade Avenue
3316 Colorado Springs, CO 80903
3318 Phone: +1.719.785.0648
3319 Fax: +1.719.785.0644
3320 EMail: john.strassner@intelliden.com
3325 P. O. Box 12195, BRQA/B501/G206
3327 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
3329 Phone: +1 919-254-4436
3330 Fax: +1 919-254-6243
3331 EMail: remoore@us.ibm.com
3335 Lemur Networks, Inc.
3339 Phone: +1-402-894-9456
3340 EMail: rmoats@lemurnetworks.net
3345 Hillsborough, NC 27278
3347 Phone: +1 919-644-3977
3348 EMail: ellesson@mindspring.com
3362 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
3364 RFC 3703 Policy Core LDAP Schema February 2004
3367 13. Full Copyright Statement
3369 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
3370 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
3371 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
3373 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
3374 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
3375 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
3376 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
3377 IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
3378 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
3379 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
3381 Intellectual Property
3383 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
3384 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
3385 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
3386 described in this document or the extent to which any license
3387 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
3388 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
3389 such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to
3390 rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
3392 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
3393 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
3394 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
3395 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
3396 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
3397 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
3399 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
3400 any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
3401 proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
3402 to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
3403 IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
3407 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
3418 Strassner, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
projects / openldap / blob