Fix prev commit

[openldap] / doc / rfc / rfc4520.txt

Network Working Group                                        K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 4520                           OpenLDAP Foundation
BCP: 64                                                        June 2006
Obsoletes: 3383
Category: Best Current Practice


     Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for
            the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document provides procedures for registering extensible elements
   of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).  The document
   also provides guidelines to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   (IANA) describing conditions under which new values can be assigned.

1.  Introduction

   The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol [RFC4510] (LDAP) is an
   extensible protocol.  LDAP supports:

      -  the addition of new operations,
      -  the extension of existing operations, and
      -  the extensible schema.

   This document details procedures for registering values used to
   unambiguously identify extensible elements of the protocol, including
   the following:

      - LDAP message types
      - LDAP extended operations and controls
      - LDAP result codes
      - LDAP authentication methods
      - LDAP attribute description options
      - Object Identifier descriptors





Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


   These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA).

   In addition, this document provides guidelines to IANA describing the
   conditions under which new values can be assigned.

   This document replaces RFC 3383.

2.  Terminology and Conventions

   This section details terms and conventions used in this document.

2.1.  Policy Terminology

   The terms "IESG Approval", "Standards Action", "IETF Consensus",
   "Specification Required", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
   and "Private Use" are used as defined in BCP 26 [RFC2434].

   The term "registration owner" (or "owner") refers to the party
   authorized to change a value's registration.

2.2.  Requirement Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119].  In
   this case, "the specification", as used by BCP 14, refers to the
   processing of protocols being submitted to the IETF standards
   process.

2.3.  Common ABNF Productions

   A number of syntaxes in this document are described using ABNF
   [RFC4234].  These syntaxes rely on the following common productions:

         ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A    ; "A"-"Z" / "a"-"z"
         LDIGIT = %x31-39             ; "1"-"9"
         DIGIT = %x30 / LDIGIT        ; "0"-"9"
         HYPHEN = %x2D                ; "-"
         DOT = %x2E                   ; "."
         number = DIGIT / ( LDIGIT 1*DIGIT )
         keychar = ALPHA / DIGIT / HYPHEN
         leadkeychar = ALPHA
         keystring = leadkeychar *keychar
         keyword = keystring

   Keywords are case insensitive.




Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


3.  IANA Considerations for LDAP

   This section details each kind of protocol value that can be
   registered and provides IANA guidelines on how to assign new values.

   IANA may reject obviously bogus registrations.

   LDAP values specified in RFCs MUST be registered.  Other LDAP values,
   except those in private-use name spaces, SHOULD be registered.  RFCs
   SHOULD NOT reference, use, or otherwise recognize unregistered LDAP
   values.

3.1.  Object Identifiers

   Numerous LDAP schema and protocol elements are identified by Object
   Identifiers (OIDs) [X.680].  Specifications that assign OIDs to
   elements SHOULD state who delegated the OIDs for their use.

   For IETF-developed elements, specifications SHOULD use OIDs under
   "Internet Directory Numbers" (1.3.6.1.1.x).  For elements developed
   by others, any properly delegated OID can be used, including those
   under "Internet Directory Numbers" (1.3.6.1.1.x) or "Internet Private
   Enterprise Numbers" (1.3.6.1.4.1.x).

   Internet Directory Numbers (1.3.6.1.1.x) will be assigned upon Expert
   Review with Specification Required.  Only one OID per specification
   will be assigned.  The specification MAY then assign any number of
   OIDs within this arc without further coordination with IANA.

   Internet Private Enterprise Numbers (1.3.6.1.4.1.x) are assigned by
   IANA <http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/enterprise.pl>.  Practices for IANA
   assignment of Internet Private Enterprise Numbers are detailed in RFC
   2578 [RFC2578].

   To avoid interoperability problems between early implementations of a
   "work in progress" and implementations of the published specification
   (e.g., the RFC), experimental OIDs SHOULD be used in "works in
   progress" and early implementations.  OIDs under the Internet
   Experimental OID arc (1.3.6.1.3.x) may be used for this purpose.
   Practices for IANA assignment of these Internet Experimental numbers
   are detailed in RFC 2578 [RFC2578].

3.2.  Protocol Mechanisms

   LDAP provides a number of Root DSA-Specific Entry (DSE) attributes
   for discovery of protocol mechanisms identified by OIDs, including
   the supportedControl, supportedExtension, and supportedFeatures
   attributes [RFC4512].



Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


   A registry of OIDs used for discovery of protocol mechanisms is
   provided to allow implementors and others to locate the technical
   specification for these protocol mechanisms.  Future specifications
   of additional Root DSE attributes holding values identifying protocol
   mechanisms MAY extend this registry for their values.

   Protocol mechanisms are registered on a First Come First Served
   basis.

3.3.  LDAP Syntaxes

   This registry provides a listing of LDAP syntaxes [RFC4512].  Each
   LDAP syntax is identified by an OID.  This registry is provided to
   allow implementors and others to locate the technical specification
   describing a particular LDAP Syntax.

   LDAP Syntaxes are registered on a First Come First Served with
   Specification Required basis.

   Note: Unlike object classes, attribute types, and various other kinds
         of schema elements, descriptors are not used in LDAP to
         identify LDAP Syntaxes.

3.4.  Object Identifier Descriptors

   LDAP allows short descriptive names (or descriptors) to be used
   instead of a numeric Object Identifier to identify select protocol
   extensions [RFC4511], schema elements [RFC4512], LDAP URL [RFC4516]
   extensions, and other objects.

   Although the protocol allows the same descriptor to refer to
   different object identifiers in certain cases and the registry
   supports multiple registrations of the same descriptor (each
   indicating a different kind of schema element and different object
   identifier), multiple registrations of the same descriptor are to be
   avoided.  All such multiple registration requests require Expert
   Review.

   Descriptors are restricted to strings of UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded
   Unicode characters restricted by the following ABNF:

      name = keystring

   Descriptors are case insensitive.

   Multiple names may be assigned to a given OID.  For purposes of
   registration, an OID is to be represented in numeric OID form (e.g.,
   1.1.0.23.40) conforming to the following ABNF:



Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


      numericoid = number 1*( DOT number )

   While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon
   descriptors, they should be short.  Descriptors longer than 48
   characters may be viewed as too long to register.

   A value ending with a hyphen ("-") reserves all descriptors that
   start with that value.  For example, the registration of the option
   "descrFamily-" reserves all options that start with "descrFamily-"
   for some related purpose.

   Descriptors beginning with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be
   registered.

   Descriptors beginning with "e-" are reserved for experiments and will
   be registered on a First Come First Served basis.

   All other descriptors require Expert Review to be registered.

   The registrant need not "own" the OID being named.

   The OID name space is managed by the ISO/IEC Joint Technical
   Committee 1 - Subcommittee 6.

3.5.  AttributeDescription Options

   An AttributeDescription [RFC4512] can contain zero or more options
   specifying additional semantics.  An option SHALL be restricted to a
   string of UTF-8 encoded Unicode characters limited by the following
   ABNF:

      option = keystring

   Options are case insensitive.

   While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon option
   strings, they should be short.  Options longer than 24 characters may
   be viewed as too long to register.

   Values ending with a hyphen ("-") reserve all option names that start
   with the name.  For example, the registration of the option
   "optionFamily-" reserves all options that start with "optionFamily-"
   for some related purpose.

   Options beginning with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be
   registered.





Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


   Options beginning with "e-" are reserved for experiments and will be
   registered on a First Come First Served basis.

   All other options require Standards Action or Expert Review with
   Specification Required to be registered.

3.6.  LDAP Message Types

   Each protocol message is encapsulated in an LDAPMessage envelope
   [RFC4511.  The protocolOp CHOICE indicates the type of message
   encapsulated.  Each message type consists of an ASN.1 identifier in
   the form of a keyword and a non-negative choice number.  The choice
   number is combined with the class (APPLICATION) and data type
   (CONSTRUCTED or PRIMITIVE) to construct the BER tag in the message's
   encoding.  The choice numbers for existing protocol messages are
   implicit in the protocol's ASN.1 defined in [RFC4511].

   New values will be registered upon Standards Action.

   Note: LDAP provides extensible messages that reduce but do not
         eliminate the need to add new message types.

3.7.  LDAP Authentication Method

   The LDAP Bind operation supports multiple authentication methods
   [RFC4511].  Each authentication choice consists of an ASN.1
   identifier in the form of a keyword and a non-negative integer.

   The registrant SHALL classify the authentication method usage using
   one of the following terms:

         COMMON      - method is appropriate for common use on the
                       Internet.
         LIMITED USE - method is appropriate for limited use.
         OBSOLETE    - method has been deprecated or otherwise found to
                       be inappropriate for any use.

   Methods without publicly available specifications SHALL NOT be
   classified as COMMON.  New registrations of the class OBSOLETE cannot
   be registered.

   New authentication method integers in the range 0-1023 require
   Standards Action to be registered.  New authentication method
   integers in the range 1024-4095 require Expert Review with
   Specification Required.  New authentication method integers in the
   range 4096-16383 will be registered on a First Come First Served
   basis.  Keywords associated with integers in the range 0-4095 SHALL
   NOT start with "e-" or "x-".  Keywords associated with integers in



Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


   the range 4096-16383 SHALL start with "e-".  Values greater than or
   equal to 16384 and keywords starting with "x-" are for Private Use
   and cannot be registered.

   Note: LDAP supports Simple Authentication and Security Layers
         [RFC4422] as an authentication choice.  SASL is an extensible
         authentication framework.

3.8.  LDAP Result Codes

   LDAP result messages carry a resultCode enumerated value to indicate
   the outcome of the operation [RFC4511].  Each result code consists of
   an ASN.1 identifier in the form of a keyword and a non-negative
   integer.

   New resultCodes integers in the range 0-1023 require Standards Action
   to be registered.  New resultCode integers in the range 1024-4095
   require Expert Review with Specification Required.  New resultCode
   integers in the range 4096-16383 will be registered on a First Come
   First Served basis.  Keywords associated with integers in the range
   0-4095 SHALL NOT start with "e-" or "x-".  Keywords associated with
   integers in the range 4096-16383 SHALL start with "e-".  Values
   greater than or equal to 16384 and keywords starting with "x-" are
   for Private Use and cannot be registered.

3.9.  LDAP Search Scope

   LDAP SearchRequest messages carry a scope-enumerated value to
   indicate the extent of search within the DIT [RFC4511].  Each search
   value consists of an ASN.1 identifier in the form of a keyword and a
   non-negative integer.

   New scope integers in the range 0-1023 require Standards Action to be
   registered.  New scope integers in the range 1024-4095 require Expert
   Review with Specification Required.  New scope integers in the range
   4096-16383 will be registered on a First Come First Served basis.
   Keywords associated with integers in the range 0-4095 SHALL NOT start
   with "e-" or "x-".  Keywords associated with integers in the range
   4096-16383 SHALL start with "e-".  Values greater than or equal to
   16384 and keywords starting with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot
   be registered.

3.10.  LDAP Filter Choice

   LDAP filters are used in making assertions against an object
   represented in the directory [RFC4511].  The Filter CHOICE indicates
   a type of assertion.  Each Filter CHOICE consists of an ASN.1
   identifier in the form of a keyword and a non-negative choice number.



Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


   The choice number is combined with the class (APPLICATION) and data
   type (CONSTRUCTED or PRIMITIVE) to construct the BER tag in the
   message's encoding.

   Note: LDAP provides the extensibleMatching choice, which reduces but
         does not eliminate the need to add new filter choices.

3.11.  LDAP ModifyRequest Operation Type

   The LDAP ModifyRequest carries a sequence of modification operations
   [RFC4511].  Each kind (e.g., add, delete, replace) of operation
   consists of an ASN.1 identifier in the form of a keyword and a non-
   negative integer.

   New operation type integers in the range 0-1023 require Standards
   Action to be registered.  New operation type integers in the range
   1024-4095 require Expert Review with Specification Required.  New
   operation type integers in the range 4096-16383 will be registered on
   a First Come First Served basis.  Keywords associated with integers
   in the range 0-4095 SHALL NOT start with "e-" or "x-".  Keywords
   associated with integers in the range 4096-16383 SHALL start with
   "e-".  Values greater than or equal to 16384 and keywords starting
   with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be registered.

3.12.  LDAP authzId Prefixes

   Authorization Identities in LDAP are strings conforming to the
   <authzId> production [RFC4513].  This production is extensible.  Each
   new specific authorization form is identified by a prefix string
   conforming to the following ABNF:

         prefix = keystring COLON
         COLON = %x3A ; COLON (":" U+003A)

   Prefixes are case insensitive.

   While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon prefix
   strings, they should be short.  Prefixes longer than 12 characters
   may be viewed as too long to register.

   Prefixes beginning with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be
   registered.

   Prefixes beginning with "e-" are reserved for experiments and will be
   registered on a First Come First Served basis.

   All other prefixes require Standards Action or Expert Review with
   Specification Required to be registered.



Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


3.13.  Directory Systems Names

   The IANA-maintained "Directory Systems Names" registry [IANADSN] of
   valid keywords for well-known attributes was used in the LDAPv2
   string representation of a distinguished name [RFC1779].  LDAPv2 is
   now Historic [RFC3494].

   Directory systems names are not known to be used in any other
   context.  LDAPv3 [RFC4514] uses Object Identifier Descriptors
   [Section 3.2] (which have a different syntax than directory system
   names).

   New Directory System Names will no longer be accepted.  For
   historical purposes, the current list of registered names should
   remain publicly available.

4.  Registration Procedure

   The procedure given here MUST be used by anyone who wishes to use a
   new value of a type described in Section 3 of this document.

   The first step is for the requester to fill out the appropriate form.
   Templates are provided in Appendix A.

   If the policy is Standards Action, the completed form SHOULD be
   provided to the IESG with the request for Standards Action.  Upon
   approval of the Standards Action, the IESG SHALL forward the request
   (possibly revised) to IANA.  The IESG SHALL be regarded as the
   registration owner of all values requiring Standards Action.

   If the policy is Expert Review, the requester SHALL post the
   completed form to the <directory@apps.ietf.org> mailing list for
   public review.  The review period is two (2) weeks.  If a revised
   form is later submitted, the review period is restarted.  Anyone may
   subscribe to this list by sending a request to <directory-
   request@apps.ietf.org>.  During the review, objections may be raised
   by anyone (including the Expert) on the list.  After completion of
   the review, the Expert, based on public comments, SHALL either
   approve the request and forward it to the IANA OR deny the request.
   In either case, the Expert SHALL promptly notify the requester of the
   action.  Actions of the Expert may be appealed [RFC2026].  The Expert
   is appointed by Applications Area Directors.  The requester is viewed
   as the registration owner of values registered under Expert Review.

   If the policy is First Come First Served, the requester SHALL submit
   the completed form directly to the IANA: <iana@iana.org>.  The
   requester is viewed as the registration owner of values registered
   under First Come First Served.



Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


   Neither the Expert nor IANA will take position on the claims of
   copyright or trademark issues regarding completed forms.

   Prior to submission of the Internet Draft (I-D) to the RFC Editor but
   after IESG review and tentative approval, the document editor SHOULD
   revise the I-D to use registered values.

5.  Registration Maintenance

   This section discusses maintenance of registrations.

5.1.  Lists of Registered Values

   IANA makes lists of registered values readily available to the
   Internet community on its web site: <http://www.iana.org/>.

5.2.  Change Control

   The registration owner MAY update the registration subject to the
   same constraints and review as with new registrations.  In cases
   where the registration owner is unable or is unwilling to make
   necessary updates, the IESG MAY assume ownership of the registration
   in order to update the registration.

5.3.  Comments

   For cases where others (anyone other than the registration owner)
   have significant objections to the claims in a registration and the
   registration owner does not agree to change the registration,
   comments MAY be attached to a registration upon Expert Review.  For
   registrations owned by the IESG, the objections SHOULD be addressed
   by initiating a request for Expert Review.

   The form of these requests is ad hoc, but MUST include the specific
   objections to be reviewed and SHOULD contain (directly or by
   reference) materials supporting the objections.

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations detailed in BCP 26 [RFC2434] are
   generally applicable to this document.  Additional security
   considerations specific to each name space are discussed in Section
   3, where appropriate.

   Security considerations for LDAP are discussed in documents
   comprising the technical specification [RFC4510].





Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


7.  Acknowledgement

   This document is a product of the IETF LDAP Revision (LDAPBIS)
   Working Group (WG).  This document is a revision of RFC 3383, also a
   product of the LDAPBIS WG.

   This document includes text borrowed from "Guidelines for Writing an
   IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC2434] by Thomas Narten and
   Harald Alvestrand.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2578]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
              "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
              STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

   [RFC4510]  Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510, June
              2006.

   [RFC4511]  Sermersheim, J., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
              Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.

   [RFC4512]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Directory Information Models", RFC 4512, June
              2006.

   [RFC4513]  Harrison, R., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms",
              RFC 4513, June 2006.



Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


   [RFC4516]  Smith, M., Ed. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access
              Protocol (LDAP): Uniform Resource Locator", RFC 4516, June
              2006.

   [Unicode]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0"
              (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5),
              as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex #27: Unicode
              3.1" (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the
              "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2"
              (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/).

   [X.680]    International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
              Standardization Sector, "Abstract Syntax Notation One
              (ASN.1) - Specification of Basic Notation", X.680(2002)
              (also ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002).

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1779]  Kille, S., "A String Representation of Distinguished
              Names", RFC 1779, March 1995.

   [RFC3494]  Zeilenga, K.,"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              version 2 (LDAPv2) to Historic Status", RFC 3494, March
              2003.

   [RFC4514]  Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC
              4514, June 2006.

   [RFC4422]  Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
              Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June
              2006.

   [IANADSN]  IANA, "Directory Systems Names",
              http://www.iana.org/assignments/directory-system-names.















Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


Appendix A.  Registration Templates

   This appendix provides registration templates for registering new
   LDAP values.  Note that more than one value may be requested by
   extending the template by listing multiple values, or through use of
   tables.

A.1.  LDAP Object Identifier Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP OID Registration

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (I-D)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

A.2.  LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration

   Object Identifier:

   Description:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Usage: (One of Control or Extension or Feature or other)

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)











Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


A.3.  LDAP Syntax Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Syntax Registration

   Object Identifier:

   Description:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

A.4.  LDAP Descriptor Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration

   Descriptor (short name):

   Object Identifier:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Usage: (One of administrative role, attribute type, matching rule,
     name form, object class, URL extension, or other)

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)













Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


A.5.  LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
   Option Name:

   Family of Options: (YES or NO)

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

A.6.  LDAP Message Type Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Message Type Registration

   LDAP Message Name:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (Approved I-D)

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

A.7.  LDAP Authentication Method Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Authentication Method Registration

   Authentication Method Name:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Intended Usage: (One of COMMON, LIMITED-USE, OBSOLETE)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)



Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


A.8.  LDAP Result Code Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Result Code Registration

   Result Code Name:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

A.8.  LDAP Search Scope Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Search Scope Registration

   Search Scope Name:

   Filter Scope String:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)


















Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 16]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


A.9.  LDAP Filter Choice Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP Filter Choice Registration

   Filter Choice Name:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

A.10.  LDAP ModifyRequest Operation Registration Template

   Subject: Request for LDAP ModifyRequest Operation Registration

   ModifyRequest Operation Name:

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

   Author/Change Controller:

   Comments:

   (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

Appendix B.  Changes since RFC 3383

   This informative appendix provides a summary of changes made since
   RFC 3383.

      -  Object Identifier Descriptors practices were updated to require
         all descriptors defined in RFCs to be registered and
         recommending all other descriptors (excepting those in
         private-use name space) be registered.  Additionally, all
         requests for multiple registrations of the same descriptor are
         now subject to Expert Review.

      -  Protocol Mechanisms practices were updated to include values of
         the 'supportedFeatures' attribute type.





Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 17]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


      -  LDAP Syntax, Search Scope, Filter Choice, ModifyRequest
         operation, and authzId prefixes registries were added.

      -  References to RFCs comprising the LDAP technical specifications
         have been updated to latest revisions.

      -  References to ISO 10646 have been replaced with [Unicode].

      -  The "Assigned Values" appendix providing initial registry
         values was removed.

      -  Numerous editorial changes were made.

Author's Address

   Kurt D. Zeilenga
   OpenLDAP Foundation

   EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
































Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 18]
\f
RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 19]
\f