-
-
Internet-Draft Editor: J. Sermersheim
Intended Category: Standard Track Novell, Inc
-Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-13.txt Mar 2003
-Obsoletes: RFC 2251
-
+Document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-30.txt Feb 2005
+Obsoletes: RFCs 2251, 2830, 3771
+
LDAP: The Protocol
Status of this Memo
- This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
- all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
+ This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
+ of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
+ author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
+ which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
+ which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
+ RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
+
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
- material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
+ material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
- http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
+ <http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt>.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
- http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
+ <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>.
+
+ This Internet-Draft will expire in February 2005.
- Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical discussion of this
- document will take place on the IETF LDAP Revision Working Group
- (LDAPbis) mailing list <ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org>. Please send
- editorial comments directly to the editor <jimse@novell.com>.
+ Technical discussion of this document will take place on the IETF
+ LDAP Revision Working Group (LDAPbis) mailing list <ietf-
+ ldapbis@openldap.org>. Please send editorial comments directly to the
+ editor <jimse@novell.com>.
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2004. All Rights Reserved.
+
Abstract
This document describes the protocol elements, along with their
- semantics and encodings, for the Lightweight Directory Access
- Protocol (LDAP). LDAP provides access to distributed directory
- services that act in accordance with X.500 data and service models.
- These protocol elements are based on those described in the X.500
- Directory Access Protocol (DAP).
+ semantics and encodings, of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP). LDAP provides access to distributed directory services that
+ act in accordance with X.500 data and service models. These protocol
+ elements are based on those described in the X.500 Directory Access
+ Protocol (DAP).
-
-Table of Contents
-
- 1. Introduction.....................................................2
- 2. Conventions......................................................3
- 3. Protocol Model...................................................3
- 4. Elements of Protocol.............................................3
- 4.1. Common Elements................................................4
- 4.1.1. Message Envelope.............................................4
- 4.1.2. String Types.................................................6
- 4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name...........6
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 1 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 1
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- 4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions.......................................6
- 4.1.5. Attribute Value..............................................7
- 4.1.6. Attribute Value Assertion....................................7
- 4.1.7. Attribute....................................................7
- 4.1.8. Matching Rule Identifier.....................................8
- 4.1.9. Result Message...............................................8
- 4.1.10. Referral...................................................10
- 4.1.11. Controls...................................................11
- 4.2. Bind Operation................................................12
- 4.3. Unbind Operation..............................................14
- 4.4. Unsolicited Notification......................................15
- 4.5. Search Operation..............................................16
- 4.6. Modify Operation..............................................23
- 4.7. Add Operation.................................................24
- 4.8. Delete Operation..............................................25
- 4.9. Modify DN Operation...........................................26
- 4.10. Compare Operation............................................27
- 4.11. Abandon Operation............................................28
- 4.12. Extended Operation...........................................28
- 4.13. Start TLS Operation..........................................29
- 5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer.........................31
- 5.1. Protocol Encoding.............................................31
- 5.2. Transfer Protocols............................................31
- 6. Implementation Guidelines.......................................32
- 6.1. Server Implementations........................................32
- 6.2. Client Implementations........................................32
- 7. Security Considerations.........................................32
- 8. Acknowledgements................................................33
- 9. Normative References............................................33
- 10. Editor's Address...............................................34
- Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes.....................................35
- A.1 Non-Error Result Codes.........................................35
- A.2 Error Result Codes.............................................35
- A.3 Classes and Precedence of Error Result Codes...................35
- Appendix C - Change History........................................46
- C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:......................................46
- C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:............46
- C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:............47
- C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:............47
- C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:............49
- C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:............51
- C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:............51
- C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:............52
- C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:............55
- C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt:...........55
- C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt:...........55
- C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt:...........55
- C.13 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt:...........56
- C.14 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-12.txt:...........56
- Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items................................56
-
-1. Introduction
+Table of Contents
+ 1. Introduction....................................................3
+ 1.1. Relationship to Other LDAP Specifications.....................3
+ 2. Conventions.....................................................3
+ 3. Protocol Model..................................................4
+ 3.1 Operation and LDAP Message Layer Relationship..................5
+ 4. Elements of Protocol............................................5
+ 4.1. Common Elements...............................................5
+ 4.1.1. Message Envelope............................................5
+ 4.1.2. String Types................................................7
+ 4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name..........7
+ 4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions......................................8
+ 4.1.5. Attribute Value.............................................8
+ 4.1.6. Attribute Value Assertion...................................8
+ 4.1.7. Attribute and PartialAttribute..............................9
+ 4.1.8. Matching Rule Identifier....................................9
+ 4.1.9. Result Message..............................................9
+ 4.1.10. Referral..................................................11
+ 4.1.11. Controls..................................................13
+ 4.2. Bind Operation...............................................14
+ 4.3. Unbind Operation.............................................17
+ 4.4. Unsolicited Notification.....................................17
+ 4.5. Search Operation.............................................18
+ 4.6. Modify Operation.............................................29
+ 4.7. Add Operation................................................31
+ 4.8. Delete Operation.............................................31
+ 4.9. Modify DN Operation..........................................32
+ 4.10. Compare Operation...........................................33
+ 4.11. Abandon Operation...........................................34
+ 4.12. Extended Operation..........................................35
+ 4.13. IntermediateResponse Message................................36
+ 4.14. StartTLS Operation..........................................37
+ 5. Protocol Encoding, Connection, and Transfer....................39
+ 5.1. Protocol Encoding............................................40
+ 5.2. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)..........................40
+ 5.3. Termination of the LDAP session..............................40
+ 6. Security Considerations........................................41
+ 7. Acknowledgements...............................................42
+ 8. Normative References...........................................42
+ 9. Informative References.........................................44
+ 10. IANA Considerations...........................................44
+ 11. Editor's Address..............................................45
+ Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes....................................46
+ A.1 Non-Error Result Codes........................................46
+ A.2 Result Codes..................................................46
+ Appendix B - Complete ASN.1 Definition............................51
+ Appendix C - Changes..............................................57
+ C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:.....................................57
+ C.2 Changes made to RFC 2830:.....................................62
+ C.3 Changes made to RFC 3771:.....................................63
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 2 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 2
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+1. Introduction
+
The Directory is "a collection of open systems cooperating to provide
- directory services" [X.500]. A Directory user, which may be a human
+ directory services" [X.500]. A directory user, which may be a human
or other entity, accesses the Directory through a client (or
Directory User Agent (DUA)). The client, on behalf of the directory
user, interacts with one or more servers (or Directory System Agents
(DSA)). Clients interact with servers using a directory access
protocol.
- This document details the protocol elements of Lightweight Directory
- Access Protocol, along with their semantics. Following the
- description of protocol elements, it describes the way in which the
- protocol is encoded and transferred.
+ This document details the protocol elements of the Lightweight
+ Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), along with their semantics.
+ Following the description of protocol elements, it describes the way
+ in which the protocol elements are encoded and transferred.
+
+
+1.1. Relationship to Other LDAP Specifications
This document is an integral part of the LDAP Technical Specification
- [Roadmap].
+ [Roadmap] which obsoletes the previously defined LDAP technical
+ specification, RFC 3377, in its entirety.
- This document replaces RFC 2251. Appendix C holds a detailed log of
- changes to RFC 2251. Prior to Working Group Last Call, this appendix
- will be distilled to a summary of changes to RFC 2251.
+ This document obsoletes all of RFC 2251 except the following:
+ Sections 3.2, 3.4, 4.1.3 (last paragraph), 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.5.1,
+ 4.1.9 (last paragraph), 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2 (last paragraph) are
+ obsoleted by [Models].
+ Section 3.3 is obsoleted by [Roadmap].
+ Sections 4.2.1 (portions), and 4.2.2 are obsoleted by [AuthMeth].
+
+ Appendix C.1 summarizes substantive changes to the remaining
+ sections.
+
+ This document obsoletes RFC 2830, Sections 2 and 4 in entirety. The
+ remainder of RFC 2830 is obsoleted by [AuthMeth]. Appendix C.2
+ summarizes substantive changes to the remaining sections.
+
+ This document also obsoletes RFC 3771 in entirety.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are
- to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+ to be interpreted as described in [Keyword].
+
+ Character names in this document use the notation for code points and
+ names from the Unicode Standard [Unicode]. For example, the letter
+ "a" may be represented as either <U+0061> or <LATIN SMALL LETTER A>.
+
+ Note: a glossary of terms used in Unicode can be found in [Glossary].
+ Information on the Unicode character encoding model can be found in
+ [CharModel].
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 3
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ The term "transport connection" refers to the underlying transport
+ services used to carry the protocol exchange, as well as associations
+ established by these services.
+
+ The term "TLS layer" refers to TLS services used in providing
+ security services, as well as associations established by these
+ services.
+
+ The term "SASL layer" refers to SASL services used in providing
+ security services, as well as associations established by these
+ services.
+
+ The term "LDAP message layer" refers to the LDAP Message (PDU)
+ services used in providing directory services, as well as
+ associations established by these services.
+
+ The term "LDAP session" refers to combined services (transport
+ connection, TLS layer, SASL layer, LDAP message layer) and their
+ associations.
+
+ See the table in Section 5 for an illustration of these four terms.
3. Protocol Model
performing protocol operations against servers. In this model, a
client transmits a protocol request describing the operation to be
performed to a server. The server is then responsible for performing
- the necessary operation(s) in the directory. Upon completion of the
- operation(s), the server returns a response containing any results or
- errors to the requesting client.
+ the necessary operation(s) in the Directory. Upon completion of an
+ operation, the server typically returns a response containing
+ appropriate data to the requesting client.
+
+ Protocol operations are generally independent of one another. Each
+ operation is processed as an atomic action, leaving the directory in
+ a consistent state.
- Note that although servers are required to return responses whenever
- such responses are defined in the protocol, there is no requirement
- for synchronous behavior on the part of either clients or servers.
- Requests and responses for multiple operations may be exchanged
- between a client and server in any order, provided the client
- eventually receives a response for every request that requires one.
+ Although servers are required to return responses whenever such
+ responses are defined in the protocol, there is no requirement for
+ synchronous behavior on the part of either clients or servers.
+ Requests and responses for multiple operations generally may be
+ exchanged between a client and server in any order. If required,
+ synchronous behavior may be controlled by client applications.
- Note that the core protocol operations defined in this document can
- be mapped to a subset of the X.500(1997) directory abstract service.
- However there is not a one-to-one mapping between LDAP protocol
- operations and DAP operations. Server implementations acting as a
- gateway to X.500 directories may need to make multiple DAP requests.
+ The core protocol operations defined in this document can be mapped
+ to a subset of the X.500 (1993) Directory Abstract Service [X.511].
+ However there is not a one-to-one mapping between LDAP operations and
+ X.500 Directory Access Protocol (DAP) operations. Server
+ implementations acting as a gateway to X.500 directories may need to
+ make multiple DAP requests to service a single LDAP request.
-
-4. Elements of Protocol
-
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 3 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 4
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- The LDAP protocol is described using Abstract Syntax Notation 1
- (ASN.1) [X.680], and is transferred using a subset of ASN.1 Basic
- Encoding Rules [X.690]. Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is
+
+3.1 Operation and LDAP Message Layer Relationship
+
+ Protocol operations are exchanged at the LDAP message layer. When the
+ transport connection is closed, any uncompleted operations at the
+ LDAP message layer, when possible, are abandoned, and when not
+ possible, are completed without transmission of the response. Also,
+ when the transport connection is closed, the client MUST NOT assume
+ that any uncompleted update operations have succeeded or failed.
+
+
+4. Elements of Protocol
+
+ The protocol is described using Abstract Syntax Notation One
+ ([ASN.1]), and is transferred using a subset of ASN.1 Basic Encoding
+ Rules ([BER]). Section 5 specifies how the protocol elements are
encoded and transferred.
- In order to support future Standards Track extensions to this
- protocol, extensibility is implied where it is allowed (per ASN.1).
- In addition, ellipses (...) have been supplied in ASN.1 types that
- are explicitly extensible as discussed in [LDAPIANA]. Because of the
- implied extensibility, clients and servers MUST ignore trailing
- SEQUENCE elements whose tags they do not recognize.
+ In order to support future extensions to this protocol, extensibility
+ is implied where it is allowed per ASN.1 (i.e. sequence, set, choice,
+ and enumerated types are extensible). In addition, ellipses (...)
+ have been supplied in ASN.1 types that are explicitly extensible as
+ discussed in [LDAPIANA]. Because of the implied extensibility,
+ clients and servers MUST (unless otherwise specified) ignore trailing
+ SEQUENCE components whose tags they do not recognize.
- Changes to the LDAP protocol other than through the extension
- mechanisms described here require a different version number. A
- client indicates the version it is using as part of the bind request,
- described in section 4.2. If a client has not sent a bind, the server
- MUST assume the client is using version 3 or later.
+ Changes to the protocol other than through the extension mechanisms
+ described here require a different version number. A client indicates
+ the version it is using as part of the BindRequest, described in
+ Section 4.2. If a client has not sent a Bind, the server MUST assume
+ the client is using version 3 or later.
- Clients may determine the protocol versions a server supports by
- reading the supportedLDAPVersion attribute from the root DSE
- [Models]. Servers which implement version 3 or later MUST provide
- this attribute.
+ Clients may attempt to determine the protocol versions a server
+ supports by reading the 'supportedLDAPVersion' attribute from the
+ root DSE (DSA-Specific Entry) [Models].
4.1. Common Elements
- This section describes the LDAPMessage envelope PDU (Protocol Data
- Unit) format, as well as data type definitions, which are used in the
+ This section describes the LDAPMessage envelope Protocol Data Unit
+ (PDU) format, as well as data type definitions, which are used in the
protocol operations.
encapsulated in a common envelope, the LDAPMessage, which is defined
as follows:
- LDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
- messageID MessageID,
- protocolOp CHOICE {
- bindRequest BindRequest,
- bindResponse BindResponse,
- unbindRequest UnbindRequest,
- searchRequest SearchRequest,
- searchResEntry SearchResultEntry,
- searchResDone SearchResultDone,
- searchResRef SearchResultReference,
- modifyRequest ModifyRequest,
- modifyResponse ModifyResponse,
- addRequest AddRequest,
- addResponse AddResponse,
- delRequest DelRequest,
- delResponse DelResponse,
- modDNRequest ModifyDNRequest,
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 4 \f
+
+
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 5
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse,
- compareRequest CompareRequest,
- compareResponse CompareResponse,
- abandonRequest AbandonRequest,
- extendedReq ExtendedRequest,
- extendedResp ExtendedResponse,
- ... },
- controls [0] Controls OPTIONAL }
+ LDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
+ messageID MessageID,
+ protocolOp CHOICE {
+ bindRequest BindRequest,
+ bindResponse BindResponse,
+ unbindRequest UnbindRequest,
+ searchRequest SearchRequest,
+ searchResEntry SearchResultEntry,
+ searchResDone SearchResultDone,
+ searchResRef SearchResultReference,
+ modifyRequest ModifyRequest,
+ modifyResponse ModifyResponse,
+ addRequest AddRequest,
+ addResponse AddResponse,
+ delRequest DelRequest,
+ delResponse DelResponse,
+ modDNRequest ModifyDNRequest,
+ modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse,
+ compareRequest CompareRequest,
+ compareResponse CompareResponse,
+ abandonRequest AbandonRequest,
+ extendedReq ExtendedRequest,
+ extendedResp ExtendedResponse,
+ ...,
+ intermediateResponse IntermediateResponse },
+ controls [0] Controls OPTIONAL }
MessageID ::= INTEGER (0 .. maxInt)
maxInt INTEGER ::= 2147483647 -- (2^^31 - 1) --
+ The ASN.1 type Controls is defined in Section 4.1.11.
+
The function of the LDAPMessage is to provide an envelope containing
common fields required in all protocol exchanges. At this time the
- only common fields are the message ID and the controls.
+ only common fields are the messageID and the controls.
If the server receives a PDU from the client in which the LDAPMessage
SEQUENCE tag cannot be recognized, the messageID cannot be parsed,
the tag of the protocolOp is not recognized as a request, or the
encoding structures or lengths of data fields are found to be
- incorrect, then the server MAY return the Notice of Disconnection
- described in section 4.4.1, with resultCode protocolError, and MUST
- immediately close the connection.
+ incorrect, then the server SHOULD return the Notice of Disconnection
+ described in Section 4.4.1, with the resultCode set to protocolError,
+ and MUST immediately terminate the LDAP session as described in
+ Section 5.3.
In other cases where the client or server cannot parse a PDU, it
- SHOULD abruptly close the connection where further communication
- (including providing notice) would be pernicious. Otherwise, server
- implementations MUST return an appropriate response to the request,
- with the resultCode set to protocolError.
-
- The ASN.1 type Controls is defined in section 4.1.11.
+ SHOULD abruptly terminate the LDAP session (Section 5.3) where
+ further communication (including providing notice) would be
+ pernicious. Otherwise, server implementations MUST return an
+ appropriate response to the request, with the resultCode set to
+ protocolError.
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 6
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
4.1.1.1. Message ID
All LDAPMessage envelopes encapsulating responses contain the
messageID value of the corresponding request LDAPMessage.
The message ID of a request MUST have a non-zero value different from
- the values of any other requests outstanding in the LDAP session of
- which this message is a part. The zero value is reserved for the
- unsolicited notification message.
+ the messageID of any other request in progress in the same LDAP
+ session. The zero value is reserved for the unsolicited notification
+ message.
Typical clients increment a counter for each request.
A client MUST NOT send a request with the same message ID as an
- earlier request on the same connection unless it can be determined
- that the server is no longer servicing the earlier request. Otherwise
- the behavior is undefined. For operations that do not return
- responses (unbind, abandon, and abandoned operations), the client
- SHOULD assume the operation is in progress until a subsequent bind
- request completes.
+ earlier request in the same LDAP session unless it can be determined
+ that the server is no longer servicing the earlier request (e.g.
+ after the final response is received, or a subsequent Bind
+ completes). Otherwise the behavior is undefined. For this purpose,
+ note that Abandon and successfully abandoned operations do not send
+ responses.
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 5 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
4.1.2. String Types
The LDAPString is a notational convenience to indicate that, although
- strings of LDAPString type encode as OCTET STRING types, the
- [ISO10646] character set (a superset of Unicode) is used, encoded
- following the UTF-8 algorithm [RFC2279]. Note that in the UTF-8
- algorithm characters which are the same as ASCII (0x0000 through
- 0x007F) are represented as that same ASCII character in a single
- byte. The other byte values are used to form a variable-length
- encoding of an arbitrary character.
+ strings of LDAPString type encode as ASN.1 OCTET STRING types, the
+ [ISO10646] character set (a superset of [Unicode]) is used, encoded
+ following the [UTF-8] algorithm. Note that Unicode characters U+0000
+ through U+007F are the same as ASCII 0 through 127, respectively, and
+ have the same single octet UTF-8 encoding. Other Unicode characters
+ have a multiple octet UTF-8 encoding.
LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded,
- -- ISO 10646 characters
+ -- [ISO10646] characters
The LDAPOID is a notational convenience to indicate that the
permitted value of this string is a (UTF-8 encoded) dotted-decimal
representation of an OBJECT IDENTIFIER. Although an LDAPOID is
encoded as an OCTET STRING, values are limited to the definition of
- numericoid given in Section 1.3 of [Models].
+ <numericoid> given in Section 1.4 of [Models].
- LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to numericoid [Models]
+ LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to <numericoid> [Models]
For example,
4.1.3. Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name
- An LDAPDN and a RelativeLDAPDN are respectively defined to be the
- representation of a distinguished-name and a relative-distinguished-
- name after encoding according to the specification in [LDAPDN].
+ An LDAPDN is defined to be the representation of a Distinguished Name
+ (DN) after encoding according to the specification in [LDAPDN].
+
+ LDAPDN ::= LDAPString
+ -- Constrained to <distinguishedName> [LDAPDN]
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 7
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
- LDAPDN ::= LDAPString
- -- Constrained to distinguishedName [LDAPDN]
+ A RelativeLDAPDN is defined to be the representation of a Relative
+ Distinguished Name (RDN) after encoding according to the
+ specification in [LDAPDN].
- RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString
- -- Constrained to name-component [LDAPDN]
+ RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString
+ -- Constrained to <name-component> [LDAPDN]
4.1.4. Attribute Descriptions
is an attribute type and zero or more options.
AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString
- -- Constrained to attributedescription
- -- [Models]
+ -- Constrained to <attributedescription>
+ -- [Models]
- An AttributeDescriptionList describes a list of 0 or more attribute
- descriptions. (A list of zero elements has special significance in
- the Search request.)
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 6 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
-
- AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF
- AttributeDescription
-
4.1.5. Attribute Value
A field of type AttributeValue is an OCTET STRING containing an
- encoded attribute value data type. The value is encoded according to
- its LDAP-specific encoding definition. The LDAP-specific encoding
- definitions for different syntaxes and attribute types may be found
- in other documents, and in particular [Syntaxes].
+ encoded attribute value. The attribute value is encoded according to
+ the LDAP-specific encoding definition of its corresponding syntax.
+ The LDAP-specific encoding definitions for different syntaxes and
+ attribute types may be found in other documents and in particular
+ [Syntaxes].
AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING
Note that there is no defined limit on the size of this encoding;
- thus protocol values may include multi-megabyte attributes (e.g.
- photographs).
+ thus protocol values may include multi-megabyte attribute values
+ (e.g. photographs).
- Attributes may be defined which have arbitrary and non-printable
- syntax. Implementations MUST NOT display nor attempt to decode as
- ASN.1, a value if its syntax is not known. The implementation may
- attempt to discover the subschema of the source entry, and retrieve
- the values of attributeTypes from it.
+ Attribute values may be defined which have arbitrary and non-
+ printable syntax. Implementations MUST NOT display nor attempt to
+ decode an attribute value if its syntax is not known. The
+ implementation may attempt to discover the subschema of the source
+ entry, and retrieve the descriptions of 'attributeTypes' from it
+ [Models].
- Clients MUST NOT send attribute values in a request that are not
- valid according to the syntax defined for the attributes.
+ Clients MUST only send attribute values in a request that are valid
+ according to the syntax defined for the attributes.
4.1.6. Attribute Value Assertion
- The AttributeValueAssertion type definition is similar to the one in
- the X.500 directory standards. It contains an attribute description
- and a matching rule assertion value suitable for that type.
+ The AttributeValueAssertion (AVA) type definition is similar to the
+ one in the X.500 Directory standards. It contains an attribute
+ description and a matching rule ([Models] Section 4.1.3) assertion
+ value suitable for that type. Elements of this type are typically
+ used to assert that the value in assertionValue matches a value of an
+ attribute.
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 8
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
- attributeDesc AttributeDescription,
- assertionValue AssertionValue }
+ attributeDesc AttributeDescription,
+ assertionValue AssertionValue }
AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING
[Syntaxes] for an example.
-4.1.7. Attribute
+4.1.7. Attribute and PartialAttribute
- An attribute consists of an attribute description and one or more
- values of that attribute description. (Though attributes MUST have at
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 7 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- least one value when stored, due to access control restrictions the
- set may be empty when transferred from the server to the client. This
- is described in section 4.5.2, concerning the PartialAttributeList
- type.)
+ Attributes and partial attributes consist of an attribute description
+ and attribute values. A PartialAttribute allows zero values, while
+ Attribute requires at least one value.
+
+ PartialAttribute ::= SEQUENCE {
+ type AttributeDescription,
+ vals SET OF value AttributeValue }
- Attribute ::= SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- vals SET OF AttributeValue }
+ Attribute ::= PartialAttribute(WITH COMPONENTS {
+ ...,
+ vals (SIZE(1..MAX))})
- Each attribute value is distinct in the set (no duplicates). The set
- of attribute values is unordered. Implementations MUST NOT reply upon
- any apparent ordering being repeatable.
+ No two of the attribute values may be equivalent as described by
+ Section 2.3 of [Models]. The set of attribute values is unordered.
+ Implementations MUST NOT rely upon the ordering being repeatable.
4.1.8. Matching Rule Identifier
- Matching rules are defined in 4.1.3 of [Models]. A matching rule is
- identified in the LDAP protocol by the printable representation of
- either its numericoid, or one of its short name descriptors, e.g.
- "caseIgnoreIA5Match" or "1.3.6.1.4.1.453.33.33".
+ Matching rules are defined in Section 4.1.3 of [Models]. A matching
+ rule is identified in the protocol by the printable representation of
+ either its <numericoid>, or one of its short name descriptors
+ [Models], e.g. 'caseIgnoreMatch' or '2.5.13.2'.
MatchingRuleId ::= LDAPString
-
- Servers which support matching rules for use in the extensibleMatch
- search filter MUST list the matching rules they implement in
- subschema entries, using the matchingRules attributes. The server
- SHOULD also list there, using the matchingRuleUse attribute, the
- attribute types with which each matching rule can be used. More
- information is given in section 4.5 of [Syntaxes].
-
+
4.1.9. Result Message
The LDAPResult is the construct used in this protocol to return
success or failure indications from servers to clients. To various
- requests, servers will return responses of LDAPResult or responses
- containing the components of LDAPResult to indicate the final status
- of a protocol operation request.
+ requests, servers will return responses containing the elements found
+ in LDAPResult to indicate the final status of the protocol operation
+ request.
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 9
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
LDAPResult ::= SEQUENCE {
- resultCode ENUMERATED {
- success (0),
- operationsError (1),
- protocolError (2),
- timeLimitExceeded (3),
- sizeLimitExceeded (4),
- compareFalse (5),
- compareTrue (6),
- authMethodNotSupported (7),
- strongAuthRequired (8),
- -- 9 reserved --
- referral (10),
- adminLimitExceeded (11),
- unavailableCriticalExtension (12),
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 8 \f
+ resultCode ENUMERATED {
+ success (0),
+ operationsError (1),
+ protocolError (2),
+ timeLimitExceeded (3),
+ sizeLimitExceeded (4),
+ compareFalse (5),
+ compareTrue (6),
+ authMethodNotSupported (7),
+ strongerAuthRequired (8),
+ -- 9 reserved --
+ referral (10),
+ adminLimitExceeded (11),
+ unavailableCriticalExtension (12),
+ confidentialityRequired (13),
+ saslBindInProgress (14),
+ noSuchAttribute (16),
+ undefinedAttributeType (17),
+ inappropriateMatching (18),
+ constraintViolation (19),
+ attributeOrValueExists (20),
+ invalidAttributeSyntax (21),
+ -- 22-31 unused --
+ noSuchObject (32),
+ aliasProblem (33),
+ invalidDNSyntax (34),
+ -- 35 reserved for undefined isLeaf --
+ aliasDereferencingProblem (36),
+ -- 37-47 unused --
+ inappropriateAuthentication (48),
+ invalidCredentials (49),
+ insufficientAccessRights (50),
+ busy (51),
+ unavailable (52),
+ unwillingToPerform (53),
+ loopDetect (54),
+ -- 55-63 unused --
+ namingViolation (64),
+ objectClassViolation (65),
+ notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66),
+ notAllowedOnRDN (67),
+ entryAlreadyExists (68),
+ objectClassModsProhibited (69),
+ -- 70 reserved for CLDAP --
+ affectsMultipleDSAs (71),
+ -- 72-79 unused --
+ other (80),
+ ... },
+ matchedDN LDAPDN,
+ diagnosticMessage LDAPString,
+ referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL }
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 10
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- confidentialityRequired (13),
- saslBindInProgress (14),
- noSuchAttribute (16),
- undefinedAttributeType (17),
- inappropriateMatching (18),
- constraintViolation (19),
- attributeOrValueExists (20),
- invalidAttributeSyntax (21),
- -- 22-31 unused --
- noSuchObject (32),
- aliasProblem (33),
- invalidDNSyntax (34),
- -- 35 reserved for undefined isLeaf --
- aliasDereferencingProblem (36),
- -- 37-47 unused --
- inappropriateAuthentication (48),
- invalidCredentials (49),
- insufficientAccessRights (50),
- busy (51),
- unavailable (52),
- unwillingToPerform (53),
- loopDetect (54),
- -- 55-63 unused --
- namingViolation (64),
- objectClassViolation (65),
- notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66),
- notAllowedOnRDN (67),
- entryAlreadyExists (68),
- objectClassModsProhibited (69),
- -- 70 reserved for CLDAP --
- affectsMultipleDSAs (71),
- -- 72-79 unused --
- other (80),
- ... },
- -- 81-90 reserved for APIs --
- matchedDN LDAPDN,
- diagnosticMessage LDAPString,
- referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL }
-
- The result codes enumeration is extensible as defined in Section 3.5
- of [LDAPIANA]. The meanings of the result codes are given in Appendix
- A.
+ The resultCode enumeration is extensible as defined in Section 3.6 of
+ [LDAPIANA]. The meanings of the listed result codes are given in
+ Appendix A. If a server detects multiple errors for an operation,
+ only one result code is returned. The server should return the result
+ code that best indicates the nature of the error encountered.
The diagnosticMessage field of this construct may, at the server's
option, be used to return a string containing a textual, human-
readable (terminal control and page formatting characters should be
avoided) diagnostic message. As this diagnostic message is not
standardized, implementations MUST NOT rely on the values returned.
- If the server chooses not to return a textual diagnostic, the
- diagnosticMessage field of the LDAPResult type MUST contain a zero
- length string.
+ Diagnostic messages typically supplement the resultCode with
+ additional information. If the server chooses not to return a textual
+ diagnostic, the diagnosticMessage field MUST be empty.
For certain result codes (typically, but not restricted to
noSuchObject, aliasProblem, invalidDNSyntax and
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 9 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- aliasDereferencingProblem), the matchedDN field is set to the name of
- the lowest entry (object or alias) in the directory that was matched.
- If no aliases were dereferenced while attempting to locate the entry,
- this will be a truncated form of the name provided, or if aliases
- were dereferenced, of the resulting name, as defined in section 12.5
- of [X.511]. The matchedDN field contains a zero length string with
- all other result codes.
+ aliasDereferencingProblem), the matchedDN field is set (subject to
+ access controls) to the name of the last entry (object or alias) used
+ in finding the target (or base) object. This will be a truncated form
+ of the provided name or, if an alias was dereferenced while
+ attempting to locate the entry, of the resulting name. Otherwise the
+ matchedDN field is empty.
4.1.10. Referral
- The referral result code indicates that the contacted server does not
- hold the target entry of the request. The referral field is present
- in an LDAPResult if the LDAPResult.resultCode field value is
- referral, and absent with all other result codes. It contains one or
- more references to one or more servers or services that may be
+ The referral result code indicates that the contacted server cannot
+ or will not perform the operation and that one or more other servers
+ may be able to. Reasons for this include:
+
+ - The target entry of the request is not held locally, but the
+ server has knowledge of its possible existence elsewhere.
+
+ - The operation is restricted on this server -- perhaps due to a
+ read-only copy of an entry to be modified.
+
+ The referral field is present in an LDAPResult if the resultCode is
+ set to referral, and absent with all other result codes. It contains
+ one or more references to one or more servers or services that may be
accessed via LDAP or other protocols. Referrals can be returned in
- response to any operation request (except unbind and abandon which do
- not have responses). At least one URL MUST be present in the
+ response to any operation request (except Unbind and Abandon which do
+ not have responses). At least one URI MUST be present in the
Referral.
- During a search operation, after the baseObject is located, and
+ During a Search operation, after the baseObject is located, and
entries are being evaluated, the referral is not returned. Instead,
- continuation references, described in section 4.5.3, are returned
- when the search scope spans multiple naming contexts, and several
- different servers would need to be contacted to complete the
+ continuation references, described in Section 4.5.3, are returned
+ when other servers would need to be contacted to complete the
operation.
- Referral ::= SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL -- one or more
+ Referral ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF uri URI
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 11
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ URI ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in
+ -- URIs
+
+ If the client wishes to progress the operation, it contacts one of
+ the supported services found in the referral. If multiple URIs are
+ present, the client assumes that any supported URI may be used to
+ progress the operation.
- LDAPURL ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in
- -- URLs
+ Clients that follow referrals MUST ensure that they do not loop
+ between servers. They MUST NOT repeatedly contact the same server for
+ the same request with the same parameters. Some clients use a counter
+ that is incremented each time referral handling occurs for an
+ operation, and these kinds of clients MUST be able to handle at least
+ ten nested referrals while progressing the operation.
- If the client wishes to progress the operation, it MUST follow the
- referral by contacting one of the servers. If multiple URLs are
- present, the client assumes that any URL may be used to progress the
- operation.
+ A URI for a server implementing LDAP and accessible via [TCP]/[IP]
+ (v4 or v6) is written as an LDAP URL according to [LDAPURL].
+
+ Referral values which are LDAP URLs follow these rules:
+
+ - If an alias was dereferenced, the <dn> part of the LDAP URL MUST
+ be present, with the new target object name.
+
+ - It is RECOMMENDED that the <dn> part be present to avoid
+ ambiguity.
+
+ - If the <dn> part is present, the client uses this name in its next
+ request to progress the operation, and if it is not present the
+ client uses the same name as in the original request.
+
+ - Some servers (e.g. participating in distributed indexing) may
+ provide a different filter in a URL of a referral for a Search
+ operation.
- URLs for servers implementing the LDAP protocol are written according
- to [LDAPURL]. If an alias was dereferenced, the <dn> part of the URL
- MUST be present, with the new target object name. If the <dn> part is
- present, the client MUST use this name in its next request to
- progress the operation, and if it is not present the client will use
- the same name as in the original request. Some servers (e.g.
- participating in distributed indexing) may provide a different filter
- in a referral for a search operation. If the filter part of the URL
- is present in an LDAPURL, the client MUST use this filter in its next
- request to progress this search, and if it is not present the client
- MUST use the same filter as it used for that search. Other aspects of
- the new request may be the same or different as the request which
- generated the referral.
+ - If the <filter> part of the LDAP URL is present, the client uses
+ this filter in its next request to progress this Search, and if it
+ is not present the client uses the same filter as it used for that
+ Search.
+
+ - For Search, it is RECOMMENDED that the <scope> part be present to
+ avoid ambiguity.
+
+ - If the <scope> part is missing, the scope of the original Search
+ is used by the client to progress the operation.
+
+ - Other aspects of the new request may be the same as or different
+ from the request which generated the referral.
+
+ Other kinds of URIs may be returned. The syntax and semantics of such
+ URIs is left to future specifications. Clients may ignore URIs that
+ they do not support.
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 10 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 12
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- Note that UTF-8 characters appearing in a DN or search filter may not
- be legal for URLs (e.g. spaces) and MUST be escaped using the %
- method in [RFC2396].
-
- Other kinds of URLs may be returned, so long as the operation could
- be performed using that protocol.
+ UTF-8 encoded characters appearing in the string representation of a
+ DN, search filter, or other fields of the referral value may not be
+ legal for URIs (e.g. spaces) and MUST be escaped using the % method
+ in [URI].
4.1.11. Controls
- A control is a way to specify extension information for an LDAP
- message. A control only alters the semantics of the message it is
- attached to.
+ Controls provide a mechanism whereby the semantics and arguments of
+ existing LDAP operations may be extended. One or more controls may be
+ attached to a single LDAP message. A control only affects the
+ semantics of the message it is attached to.
+
+ Controls sent by clients are termed 'request controls' and those sent
+ by servers are termed 'response controls'.
- Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF Control
+ Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF control Control
Control ::= SEQUENCE {
- controlType LDAPOID,
- criticality BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
- controlValue OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+ controlType LDAPOID,
+ criticality BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
+ controlValue OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
- The controlType field MUST be a UTF-8 encoded dotted-decimal
- representation of an OBJECT IDENTIFIER which uniquely identifies the
- control. This prevents conflicts between control names.
+ The controlType field is the dotted-decimal representation of an
+ OBJECT IDENTIFIER which uniquely identifies the control. This
+ provides unambiguous naming of controls. Often, response control(s)
+ solicited by a request control share controlType values with the
+ request control.
- The criticality field is either TRUE or FALSE and only applies to
- request messages that have a corresponding response message. For all
- other messages (such as abandonRequest, unbindRequest and all
- response messages), the criticality field is treated as FALSE.
+ The criticality field only has meaning in controls attached to
+ request messages (except UnbindRequest). For controls attached to
+ response messages and the UnbindRequest, the criticality field SHOULD
+ be FALSE, and MUST be ignored by the receiving protocol peer. A value
+ of TRUE indicates that it is unacceptable to perform the operation
+ without applying the semantics of the control. Specifically, the
+ criticality field is applied as follows:
- If the server recognizes the control type and it is appropriate for
- the operation, the server will make use of the control when
- performing the operation.
+ - Regardless of the value of the criticality field, if the server
+ recognizes the control type and it is appropriate for the
+ operation, the server is to make use of the control when
+ performing the operation.
- If the server does not recognize the control type or it is not
- appropriate for the operation, and the criticality field is TRUE, the
- server MUST NOT perform the operation, and MUST instead return the
- resultCode unavailableCriticalExtension.
+ - If the server does not recognize the control type or it is not
+ appropriate for the operation, and the criticality field is TRUE,
+ the server MUST NOT perform the operation, and for operations that
+ have a response message, MUST return with the resultCode set to
+ unavailableCriticalExtension.
- If the control is unrecognized or inappropriate but the criticality
- field is FALSE, the server MUST ignore the control.
+ - If the server does not recognize the control type or it is not
+ appropriate for the operation, and the criticality field is FALSE,
+ the server MUST ignore the control.
- The controlValue contains any information associated with the
- control, and its format is defined for the control. Implementations
- MUST be prepared to handle arbitrary contents of the controlValue
- octet string, including zero bytes. It is absent only if there is no
- value information which is associated with a control of its type.
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 13
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ The controlValue may contain information associated with the
+ controlType. Its format is defined by the specification of the
+ control. Implementations MUST be prepared to handle arbitrary
+ contents of the controlValue octet string, including zero bytes. It
+ is absent only if there is no value information which is associated
+ with a control of its type. When a controlValue is defined in terms
+ of ASN.1, and BER encoded according to Section 5.1, it also follows
+ the extensibility rules in Section 4.
+
+ Servers list the controlType of request controls they recognize in
+ the 'supportedControl' attribute in the root DSE (Section 5.1 of
+ [Models]).
+
+ Controls SHOULD NOT be combined unless the semantics of the
+ combination has been specified. The semantics of control
+ combinations, if specified, are generally found in the control
+ specification most recently published. When a combination of controls
+ is encountered whose semantics are invalid, not specified (or not
+ known), the message is considered to be not well-formed, thus the
+ operation fails with protocolError. Additionally, unless order-
+ dependent semantics are given in a specification, the order of a
+ combination of controls in the SEQUENCE is ignored. Where the order
+ is to be ignored but cannot be ignored by the server, the message is
+ considered not well-formed and the operation fails with
+ protocolError.
This document does not specify any controls. Controls may be
- specified in other documents. The specification of a control consists
- of:
+ specified in other documents. Documents detailing control extensions
+ are to provide for each control:
- the OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to the control,
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 11 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- - whether the control is always noncritical, always critical, or
- critical at the client's option,
+ - direction as to what value the sender should provide for the
+ criticality field (note: the semantics of the criticality field
+ are defined above should not be altered by the control's
+ specification),
- - the format of the controlValue contents of the control,
+ - whether the controlValue field is present, and if so, the format
+ of its contents,
- - the semantics of the control,
+ - the semantics of the control, and
- - and optionally, semantics regarding the combination of the control
+ - optionally, semantics regarding the combination of the control
with other controls.
- Servers list the controlType of all request controls they recognize
- in the supportedControl attribute [Models] in the root DSE.
-
- Controls should not be combined unless the semantics of the
- combination has been specified. The semantics of control
- combinations, if specified, are generally found in the control
- specification most recently published. In the absence of combination
- semantics, the behavior of the operation is undefined.
- Additionally, the order of a combination of controls in the SEQUENCE
- is ignored unless the control specification(s) describe(s)
- combination semantics.
-
4.2. Bind Operation
- The function of the Bind Operation is to allow authentication
- information to be exchanged between the client and server. Prior to
- the first BindRequest, the implied identity is anonymous. Refer to
- [AuthMeth] for the authentication-related semantics of this
- operation.
+ The function of the Bind operation is to allow authentication
+ information to be exchanged between the client and server. The Bind
+ operation should be thought of as the "authenticate" operation.
+ Operational, authentication, and security-related semantics of this
+ operation are given in [AuthMeth].
- The Bind Request is defined as follows:
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 14
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ The Bind request is defined as follows:
BindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 0] SEQUENCE {
- version INTEGER (1 .. 127),
- name LDAPDN,
- authentication AuthenticationChoice }
+ version INTEGER (1 .. 127),
+ name LDAPDN,
+ authentication AuthenticationChoice }
AuthenticationChoice ::= CHOICE {
- simple [0] OCTET STRING,
- -- 1 and 2 reserved
- sasl [3] SaslCredentials,
- ... }
+ simple [0] OCTET STRING,
+ -- 1 and 2 reserved
+ sasl [3] SaslCredentials,
+ ... }
SaslCredentials ::= SEQUENCE {
- mechanism LDAPString,
- credentials OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+ mechanism LDAPString,
+ credentials OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
- Parameters of the Bind Request are:
+ Fields of the BindRequest are:
- version: A version number indicating the version of the protocol
- to be used in this protocol session. This document describes
- version 3 of the LDAP protocol. Note that there is no version
- negotiation, and the client just sets this parameter to the
+ to be used at the LDAP message layer. This document describes
+ version 3 of the protocol. There is no version negotiation. The
+ client sets this field to the version it desires. If the server
+ does not support the specified version, it MUST respond with a
+ BindResponse where the resultCode is set to protocolError.
+
+ - name: If not empty, the name of the Directory object that the
+ client wishes to bind as. This field may take on a null value (a
+ zero length string) for the purposes of anonymous binds
+ ([AuthMeth] Section 5.1) or when using Simple Authentication and
+ Security Layer [SASL] authentication ([AuthMeth] Section 3.3.2).
+ Where the server attempts to locate the named object, it SHALL NOT
+ perform alias dereferencing.
+
+ - authentication: information used in authentication. This type is
+ extensible as defined in Section 3.7 of [LDAPIANA]. Servers that
+ do not support a choice supplied by a client return a BindResponse
+ with the resultCode set to authMethodNotSupported.
+
+ Textual passwords (consisting of a character sequence with a known
+ character set and encoding) transferred to the server using the
+ simple AuthenticationChoice SHALL be transferred as [UTF-8]
+ encoded [Unicode]. Prior to transfer, clients SHOULD prepare text
+ passwords by applying the [SASLprep] profile of the [Stringprep]
+ algorithm. Passwords consisting of other data (such as random
+ octets) MUST NOT be altered. The determination of whether a
+ password is textual is a local client matter.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 12 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 15
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- version it desires. If the server does not support the specified
- version, it responds with protocolError in the resultCode field of
- the BindResponse.
-
- - name: The name of the directory object that the client wishes to
- bind as. This field may take on a null value (a zero length
- string) for the purposes of anonymous binds ([AuthMeth] section 7)
- or when using SASL authentication ([AuthMeth] section 4.3). Server
- behavior is undefined when the name is a null value, simple
- authentication is used, and a password is specified. The server
- SHOULD NOT perform any alias dereferencing in determining the
- object to bind as.
-
- - authentication: information used to authenticate the name, if any,
- provided in the Bind Request. This type is extensible as defined
- in Section 3.6 of [LDAPIANA]. Servers that do not support a choice
- supplied by a client will return authMethodNotSupported in the
- result code of the BindResponse.
-
- Authorization is the use of this authentication information when
- performing operations. Authorization MAY be affected by factors
- outside of the LDAP Bind Request, such as lower layer security
- services.
-
-
4.2.1. Processing of the Bind Request
- Upon receipt of a BindRequest, the server MUST ensure there are no
- outstanding operations in progress on the connection (This simplifies
- server implementation). The server then proceeds to authenticate the
- client in either a single-step, or multi-step bind process. Each step
- requires the server to return a BindResponse to indicate the status
- of authentication.
+ Before processing a BindRequest, all uncompleted operations MUST
+ either complete or be abandoned. The server may either wait for the
+ uncompleted operations to complete, or abandon them. The server then
+ proceeds to authenticate the client in either a single-step, or
+ multi-step Bind process. Each step requires the server to return a
+ BindResponse to indicate the status of authentication.
+ After sending a BindRequest, clients MUST NOT send further LDAP PDUs
+ until receiving the BindResponse. Similarly, servers SHOULD NOT
+ process or respond to requests received while processing a
+ BindRequest.
+
If the client did not bind before sending a request and receives an
- operationsError, it may then send a Bind Request. If this also fails
- or the client chooses not to bind on the existing connection, it may
- close the connection, reopen it and begin again by first sending a
- PDU with a Bind Request. This will aid in interoperating with servers
- implementing other versions of LDAP.
-
- Clients MAY send multiple Bind Requests on a connection to change
- their credentials. Authentication from earlier binds is subsequently
- ignored. A failed or abandoned Bind Operation has the effect of
- leaving the connection in an anonymous state. To arrive at a known
- authentication state after abandoning a bind operation, clients may
- unbind, rebind, or make use of the BindResponse. If a SASL transfer
- encryption or integrity mechanism has been negotiated, and that
- mechanism does not support the changing of credentials from one
- identity to another, then the client MUST instead establish a new
- connection.
+ operationsError to that request, it may then send a BindRequest. If
+ this also fails or the client chooses not to bind on the existing
+ LDAP session, it may terminate the LDAP session, re-establish it and
+ begin again by first sending a PDU with a BindRequest. This will aid
+ in interoperating with servers implementing other versions of LDAP.
+ Clients may send multiple Bind requests to change the authentication
+ and/or security associations or to complete a multi-stage Bind
+ process. Authentication from earlier binds is subsequently ignored.
+
For some SASL authentication mechanisms, it may be necessary for the
- client to invoke the BindRequest multiple times. This is indicated by
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 13 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- the server sending a BindResponse with the resultCode set to
- saslBindInProgress. This indicates that the server requires the
- client to send a new bind request, with the same sasl mechanism, to
- continue the authentication process. If at any stage the client
- wishes to abort the bind process it MAY unbind and then drop the
- underlying connection. Clients MUST NOT invoke operations between two
- Bind Requests made as part of a multi-stage bind.
+ client to invoke the BindRequest multiple times ([AuthMeth] Section
+ 8.2). Clients MUST NOT invoke operations between two Bind requests
+ made as part of a multi-stage Bind.
A client may abort a SASL bind negotiation by sending a BindRequest
with a different value in the mechanism field of SaslCredentials, or
an AuthenticationChoice other than sasl.
If the client sends a BindRequest with the sasl mechanism field as an
- empty string, the server MUST return a BindResponse with
- authMethodNotSupported as the resultCode. This will allow clients to
+ empty string, the server MUST return a BindResponse with the
+ resultCode set to authMethodNotSupported. This will allow clients to
abort a negotiation if it wishes to try again with the same SASL
mechanism.
4.2.2. Bind Response
- The Bind Response is defined as follows.
+ The Bind response is defined as follows.
BindResponse ::= [APPLICATION 1] SEQUENCE {
COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
BindResponse consists simply of an indication from the server of the
status of the client's request for authentication.
- A successful bind operation is indicated by a BindResponse with a
- resultCode set to success (0). Otherwise, an appropriate resultCode
- is set in the BindResponse. For bind, the protocolError (2)
- resultCode may be used to indicate that the version number supplied
- by the client is unsupported.
-
- If the server does not support the client's requested protocol
- version, it MUST set the resultCode to protocolError.
-
- If the client receives a BindResponse response where the resultCode
- was protocolError, it MUST close the connection as the server will be
- unwilling to accept further operations. (This is for compatibility
- with earlier versions of LDAP, in which the bind was always the first
- operation, and there was no negotiation.)
-
- The serverSaslCreds are used as part of a SASL-defined bind mechanism
- to allow the client to authenticate the server to which it is
- communicating, or to perform "challenge-response" authentication. If
- the client bound with the simple choice, or the SASL mechanism does
- not require the server to return information to the client, then this
- field is not to be included in the result.
-
-
-4.3. Unbind Operation
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 14 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 16
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+ A successful Bind operation is indicated by a BindResponse with a
+ resultCode set to success. Otherwise, an appropriate result code is
+ set in the BindResponse. For BindResponse, the protocolError result
+ code may be used to indicate that the version number supplied by the
+ client is unsupported.
+
+ If the client receives a BindResponse where the resultCode is set to
+ protocolError, it is to assume that the server does not support this
+ version of LDAP. While the client may be able proceed with another
+ version of this protocol (this may or may not require closing and re-
+ establishing the transport connection), how to proceed with another
+ version of this protocol is beyond the scope of this document.
+ Clients which are unable or unwilling to proceed SHOULD terminate the
+ LDAP session.
+
+ The serverSaslCreds field is used as part of a SASL-defined bind
+ mechanism to allow the client to authenticate the server to which it
+ is communicating, or to perform "challenge-response" authentication.
+ If the client bound with the simple choice, or the SASL mechanism
+ does not require the server to return information to the client, then
+ this field SHALL NOT be included in the BindResponse.
- The function of the Unbind Operation is to terminate a protocol
- session. The Unbind Operation is defined as follows:
+
+4.3. Unbind Operation
+
+ The function of the Unbind operation is to terminate an LDAP session.
+ The Unbind operation is not the antithesis of the Bind operation as
+ the name implies. The naming of these operations are historical. The
+ Unbind operation should be thought of as the "quit" operation.
+
+ The Unbind operation is defined as follows:
UnbindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 2] NULL
- The Unbind Operation has no response defined. Upon transmission of an
- UnbindRequest, a protocol client MUST assume that the protocol
- session is terminated. Upon receipt of an UnbindRequest, a protocol
- server MUST assume that the requesting client has terminated the
- session and that all outstanding requests may be discarded, and MUST
- close the connection.
+ The client, upon transmission of the UnbindRequest, and the server,
+ upon receipt of the UnbindRequest are to gracefully terminate the
+ LDAP session as described in Section 5.3.
+
+ Uncompleted operations are handled as specified in Section 3.1.
4.4. Unsolicited Notification
An unsolicited notification is an LDAPMessage sent from the server to
the client which is not in response to any LDAPMessage received by
the server. It is used to signal an extraordinary condition in the
- server or in the connection between the client and the server. The
+ server or in the LDAP session between the client and the server. The
notification is of an advisory nature, and the server will not expect
any response to be returned from the client.
+
+
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 17
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
The unsolicited notification is structured as an LDAPMessage in which
- the messageID is 0 and protocolOp is of the extendedResp form. The
- responseName field of the ExtendedResponse is present. The LDAPOID
- value MUST be unique for this notification, and not be used in any
- other situation.
+ the messageID is zero and protocolOp is set to the extendedResp
+ choice using the ExtendedResponse type (See Section 4.12). The
+ responseName field of the ExtendedResponse always contains an LDAPOID
+ which is unique for this notification.
One unsolicited notification (Notice of Disconnection) is defined in
- this document.
+ this document. The specification of an unsolicited notification
+ consists of:
+ - the OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to the notification (to be
+ specified in the responseName,
-4.4.1. Notice of Disconnection
+ - the format of the contents of the responseValue (if any),
- This notification may be used by the server to advise the client that
- the server is about to close the connection due to an error
- condition. Note that this notification is NOT a response to an unbind
- requested by the client: the server MUST follow the procedures of
- section 4.3. This notification is intended to assist clients in
- distinguishing between an error condition and a transient network
- failure. As with a connection close due to network failure, the
- client MUST NOT assume that any outstanding requests which modified
- the directory have succeeded or failed.
+ - the circumstances which will cause the notification to be sent,
+ and
- The responseName is 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20036, the response field is
- absent, and the resultCode is used to indicate the reason for the
- disconnection.
+ - the semantics of the message.
- The following resultCode values are to be used in this notification:
- - protocolError: The server has received data from the client in
- which the LDAPMessage structure could not be parsed.
+4.4.1. Notice of Disconnection
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 15 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- - strongAuthRequired: The server has detected that an established
- underlying security association protecting communication between
- the client and server has unexpectedly failed or been compromised.
+ This notification may be used by the server to advise the client that
+ the server is about to terminate the LDAP session on its own
+ initiative. This notification is intended to assist clients in
+ distinguishing between an exceptional server condition and a
+ transient network failure. Note that this notification is not a
+ response to an Unbind requested by the client. Uncompleted operations
+ are handled as specified in Section 3.1.
- - unavailable: This server will stop accepting new connections and
- operations on all existing connections, and be unavailable for an
- extended period of time. The client may make use of an alternative
- server.
+ The responseName is 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20036, the responseValue field
+ is absent, and the resultCode is used to indicate the reason for the
+ disconnection. When the strongerAuthRequired resultCode is returned
+ with this message, it indicates that the server has detected that an
+ established security association between the client and server has
+ unexpectedly failed or been compromised.
- After sending this notice, the server MUST close the connection.
- After receiving this notice, the client MUST NOT transmit any further
- on the connection, and may abruptly close the connection.
+ Upon transmission of the Notice of Disconnection, the server
+ gracefully terminates the LDAP session as described in Section 5.3.
4.5. Search Operation
- The Search Operation allows a client to request that a search be
- performed on its behalf by a server. This can be used to read
- attributes from a single entry, from entries immediately below a
- particular entry, or a whole subtree of entries.
+ The Search operation is used to request a server to return, subject
+ to access controls and other restrictions, a set of entries matching
+ a complex search criterion. This can be used to read attributes from
+ a single entry, from entries immediately subordinate to a particular
+ entry, or a whole subtree of entries.
4.5.1. Search Request
- The Search Request is defined as follows:
+ The Search request is defined as follows:
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 18
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE {
- baseObject LDAPDN,
- scope ENUMERATED {
- baseObject (0),
- singleLevel (1),
- wholeSubtree (2) },
- derefAliases ENUMERATED {
- neverDerefAliases (0),
- derefInSearching (1),
- derefFindingBaseObj (2),
- derefAlways (3) },
- sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
- timeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
- typesOnly BOOLEAN,
- filter Filter,
- attributes AttributeDescriptionList }
+ baseObject LDAPDN,
+ scope ENUMERATED {
+ baseObject (0),
+ singleLevel (1),
+ wholeSubtree (2),
+ ... },
+ derefAliases ENUMERATED {
+ neverDerefAliases (0),
+ derefInSearching (1),
+ derefFindingBaseObj (2),
+ derefAlways (3) },
+ sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
+ timeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
+ typesOnly BOOLEAN,
+ filter Filter,
+ attributes AttributeSelection }
+
+ AttributeSelection ::= SEQUENCE OF selector LDAPString
+ -- The LDAPString is constrained to
+ -- <attributeSelector> in Section 4.5.1.7
Filter ::= CHOICE {
- and [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter,
- or [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter,
- not [2] Filter,
- equalityMatch [3] AttributeValueAssertion,
- substrings [4] SubstringFilter,
- greaterOrEqual [5] AttributeValueAssertion,
- lessOrEqual [6] AttributeValueAssertion,
- present [7] AttributeDescription,
- approxMatch [8] AttributeValueAssertion,
- extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion }
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 16 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
+ and [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF filter Filter,
+ or [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF filter Filter,
+ not [2] Filter,
+ equalityMatch [3] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ substrings [4] SubstringFilter,
+ greaterOrEqual [5] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ lessOrEqual [6] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ present [7] AttributeDescription,
+ approxMatch [8] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion,
+ ... }
SubstringFilter ::= SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- -- at least one must be present,
- -- initial and final can occur at most once
- substrings SEQUENCE OF CHOICE {
- initial [0] AssertionValue,
- any [1] AssertionValue,
- final [2] AssertionValue } }
+ type AttributeDescription,
+ substrings SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF substring CHOICE {
+ initial [0] AssertionValue, -- can occur at most once
+ any [1] AssertionValue,
+ final [2] AssertionValue } -- can occur at most once
+ }
MatchingRuleAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
- matchingRule [1] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL,
- type [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,
- matchValue [3] AssertionValue,
- dnAttributes [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }
+ matchingRule [1] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL,
+ type [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,
+ matchValue [3] AssertionValue,
+ dnAttributes [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }
- Parameters of the Search Request are:
+
+
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 19
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ Note that an X.500 "list"-like operation can be emulated by the
+ client requesting a singleLevel Search operation with a filter
+ checking for the presence of the 'objectClass' attribute, and that an
+ X.500 "read"-like operation can be emulated by a baseObject Search
+ operation with the same filter. A server which provides a gateway to
+ X.500 is not required to use the Read or List operations, although it
+ may choose to do so, and if it does, it must provide the same
+ semantics as the X.500 Search operation.
+
+
+4.5.1.1 SearchRequest.baseObject
- - baseObject: An LDAPDN that is the base object entry relative to
- which the search is to be performed.
+ The name of the base object entry (or possibly the root) relative to
+ which the Search is to be performed.
- - scope: An indicator of the scope of the search to be performed.
- The semantics of the possible values of this field are identical
- to the semantics of the scope field in the X.511 Search Operation.
- - derefAliases: An indicator as to how alias objects (as defined in
- X.501) are to be handled in searching. The semantics of the
- possible values of this field are:
+4.5.1.2 SearchRequest.scope
+
+ Specifies the scope of the Search to be performed. The semantics (as
+ described in [X.511]) of the defined values of this field are:
- neverDerefAliases: do not dereference aliases in searching
- or in locating the base object of the search;
+ baseObject: The scope is constrained to the entry named by
+ baseObject.
+
+ singleLevel: The scope is constrained to the immediate
+ subordinates of the entry named by baseObject.
+
+ wholeSubtree: the scope is constrained to the entry named by the
+ baseObject, and all its subordinates.
- derefInSearching: dereference aliases in subordinates of
- the base object in searching, but not in locating the base
- object of the search;
- derefFindingBaseObj: dereference aliases in locating the
- base object of the search, but not when searching
- subordinates of the base object;
+4.5.1.3 SearchRequest.derefAliases
+
+ An indicator as to whether or not alias entries (as defined in
+ [Models]) are to be dereferenced during stages of the Search
+ operation.
- derefAlways: dereference aliases both in searching and in
- locating the base object of the search.
+ The act of dereferencing an alias includes recursively dereferencing
+ aliases which refer to aliases.
- - sizeLimit: A size limit that restricts the maximum number of
- entries to be returned as a result of the search. A value of 0 in
- this field indicates that no client-requested size limit
- restrictions are in effect for the search. Servers may enforce a
- maximum number of entries to return.
+ Servers MUST detect looping while dereferencing aliases in order to
+ prevent denial of service attacks of this nature.
- - timeLimit: A time limit that restricts the maximum time (in
- seconds) allowed for a search. A value of 0 in this field
- indicates that no client-requested time limit restrictions are in
- effect for the search.
+ The semantics of the defined values of this field are:
+ neverDerefAliases: Do not dereference aliases in searching or in
+ locating the base object of the Search.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 17 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 20
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- - typesOnly: An indicator as to whether search results will contain
- both attribute descriptions and values, or just attribute
- descriptions. Setting this field to TRUE causes only attribute
- descriptions (no values) to be returned. Setting this field to
- FALSE causes both attribute descriptions and values to be
- returned.
-
- - filter: A filter that defines the conditions that must be
- fulfilled in order for the search to match a given entry.
-
- The 'and', 'or' and 'not' choices can be used to form combinations
- of filters. At least one filter element MUST be present in an
- 'and' or 'or' choice. The others match against individual
- attribute values of entries in the scope of the search.
- (Implementor's note: the 'not' filter is an example of a tagged
- choice in an implicitly-tagged module. In BER this is treated as
- if the tag was explicit.)
-
- A server MUST evaluate filters according to the three-valued logic
- of X.511 (1993) section 7.8.1. In summary, a filter is evaluated
- to either "TRUE", "FALSE" or "Undefined". If the filter evaluates
- to TRUE for a particular entry, then the attributes of that entry
- are returned as part of the search result (subject to any
- applicable access control restrictions). If the filter evaluates
- to FALSE or Undefined, then the entry is ignored for the search.
-
- A filter of the "and" choice is TRUE if all the filters in the SET
- OF evaluate to TRUE, FALSE if at least one filter is FALSE, and
- otherwise Undefined. A filter of the "or" choice is FALSE if all
- of the filters in the SET OF evaluate to FALSE, TRUE if at least
- one filter is TRUE, and Undefined otherwise. A filter of the "not"
- choice is TRUE if the filter being negated is FALSE, FALSE if it
- is TRUE, and Undefined if it is Undefined.
+ derefInSearching: While searching subordinates of the base object,
+ dereference any alias within the search scope. Dereferenced
+ objects become the vertices of further search scopes where the
+ Search operation is also applied. If the search scope is
+ wholeSubtree, the Search continues in the subtree(s) of any
+ dereferenced object. If the search scope is singleLevel, the
+ search is applied to any dereferenced objects, and is not applied
+ to their subordinates. Servers SHOULD eliminate duplicate entries
+ that arise due to alias dereferencing while searching.
- The present match evaluates to TRUE where there is an attribute or
- subtype of the specified attribute description present in an
- entry, and FALSE otherwise (including a presence test with an
- unrecognized attribute description.)
+ derefFindingBaseObj: Dereference aliases in locating the base
+ object of the Search, but not when searching subordinates of the
+ base object.
- The matching rule for equalityMatch filter items is defined by the
- EQUALITY matching rule for the attribute type.
+ derefAlways: Dereference aliases both in searching and in locating
+ the base object of the Search.
+
- The matching rule and assertion syntax for AssertionValues in a
- substrings filter item is defined by the SUBSTR matching rule for
- the attribute type.
+4.5.1.4 SearchRequest.sizeLimit
+
+ A size limit that restricts the maximum number of entries to be
+ returned as a result of the Search. A value of zero in this field
+ indicates that no client-requested size limit restrictions are in
+ effect for the Search. Servers may also enforce a maximum number of
+ entries to return.
- The matching rule for greaterOrEqual and lessOrEqual filter items
- is defined by the ORDERING matching rule for the attribute type.
- The matching rule for approxMatch filter items is implementation-
- defined. If approximate matching is not supported by the server,
- the filter item should be treated as an equalityMatch.
-
- The extensibleMatch is new in this version of LDAP. If the
+4.5.1.5 SearchRequest.timeLimit
+
+ A time limit that restricts the maximum time (in seconds) allowed for
+ a Search. A value of zero in this field indicates that no client-
+ requested time limit restrictions are in effect for the Search.
+ Servers may also enforce a maximum time limit for the Search.
+
+
+4.5.1.6 SearchRequest.typesOnly
+
+ An indicator as to whether Search results are to contain both
+ attribute descriptions and values, or just attribute descriptions.
+ Setting this field to TRUE causes only attribute descriptions (no
+ values) to be returned. Setting this field to FALSE causes both
+ attribute descriptions and values to be returned.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 18 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 21
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- matchingRule field is absent, the type field MUST be present, and
- the equality match is performed for that type. If the type field
- is absent and matchingRule is present, the matchValue is compared
- against all attributes in an entry which support that
- matchingRule, and the matchingRule determines the syntax for the
- assertion value (the filter item evaluates to TRUE if it matches
- with at least one attribute in the entry, FALSE if it does not
- match any attribute in the entry, and Undefined if the
- matchingRule is not recognized or the assertionValue cannot be
- parsed.) If the type field is present and matchingRule is present,
- the matchingRule MUST be one permitted for use with that type,
- otherwise the filter item is undefined. If the dnAttributes field
- is set to TRUE, the match is applied against all the
- AttributeValueAssertions in an entry's distinguished name as well,
- and also evaluates to TRUE if there is at least one attribute in
- the distinguished name for which the filter item evaluates to
- TRUE. (Editors note: The dnAttributes field is present so that
- there does not need to be multiple versions of generic matching
- rules such as for word matching, one to apply to entries and
- another to apply to entries and dn attributes as well).
-
- A filter item evaluates to Undefined when the server would not be
- able to determine whether the assertion value matches an entry. If
- an attribute description in an equalityMatch, substrings,
- greaterOrEqual, lessOrEqual, approxMatch or extensibleMatch filter
- is not recognized by the server, a matching rule id in the
- extensibleMatch is not recognized by the server, the assertion
- value cannot be parsed, or the type of filtering requested is not
- implemented, then the filter is Undefined. Thus for example if a
- server did not recognize the attribute type shoeSize, a filter of
- (shoeSize=*) would evaluate to FALSE, and the filters
- (shoeSize=12), (shoeSize>=12) and (shoeSize<=12) would evaluate to
- Undefined.
-
- Servers MUST NOT return errors if attribute descriptions or
- matching rule ids are not recognized, or assertion values cannot
- be parsed. More details of filter processing are given in section
- 7.8 of [X.511].
-
- - attributes: A list of the attributes to be returned from each
- entry which matches the search filter. There are two special
- values which may be used: an empty list with no attributes, and
- the attribute description string "*". Both of these signify that
- all user attributes are to be returned. (The "*" allows the client
- to request all user attributes in addition to any specified
- operational attributes).
-
- Attributes MUST be named at most once in the list, and are
- returned at most once in an entry. If there are attribute
- descriptions in the list which are not recognized, they are
- ignored by the server.
-
- If the client does not want any attributes returned, it can
- specify a list containing only the attribute with OID "1.1". This
+4.5.1.7 SearchRequest.filter
+
+ A filter that defines the conditions that must be fulfilled in order
+ for the Search to match a given entry.
+
+ The 'and', 'or' and 'not' choices can be used to form combinations of
+ filters. At least one filter element MUST be present in an 'and' or
+ 'or' choice. The others match against individual attribute values of
+ entries in the scope of the Search. (Implementor's note: the 'not'
+ filter is an example of a tagged choice in an implicitly-tagged
+ module. In BER this is treated as if the tag was explicit.)
+
+ A server MUST evaluate filters according to the three-valued logic of
+ [X.511] (1993) Clause 7.8.1. In summary, a filter is evaluated to
+ either "TRUE", "FALSE" or "Undefined". If the filter evaluates to
+ TRUE for a particular entry, then the attributes of that entry are
+ returned as part of the Search result (subject to any applicable
+ access control restrictions). If the filter evaluates to FALSE or
+ Undefined, then the entry is ignored for the Search.
+
+ A filter of the "and" choice is TRUE if all the filters in the SET OF
+ evaluate to TRUE, FALSE if at least one filter is FALSE, and
+ otherwise Undefined. A filter of the "or" choice is FALSE if all of
+ the filters in the SET OF evaluate to FALSE, TRUE if at least one
+ filter is TRUE, and Undefined otherwise. A filter of the 'not' choice
+ is TRUE if the filter being negated is FALSE, FALSE if it is TRUE,
+ and Undefined if it is Undefined.
+
+ A filter item evaluates to Undefined when the server would not be
+ able to determine whether the assertion value matches an entry.
+ Examples include:
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 19 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- OID was chosen arbitrarily and does not correspond to any
- attribute in use.
-
- Client implementors should note that even if all user attributes
- are requested, some attributes of the entry may not be included in
- search results due to access controls or other restrictions.
- Furthermore, servers will not return operational attributes, such
- as objectClasses or attributeTypes, unless they are listed by
- name, since there may be extremely large number of values for
- certain operational attributes. (A list of operational attributes
- for use in LDAP is given in [Syntaxes].)
+ - An attribute description in an equalityMatch, substrings,
+ greaterOrEqual, lessOrEqual, approxMatch or extensibleMatch
+ filter is not recognized by the server.
- Note that an X.500 "list"-like operation can be emulated by the
- client requesting a one-level LDAP search operation with a filter
- checking for the presence of the objectClass attribute, and that an
- X.500 "read"-like operation can be emulated by a base object LDAP
- search operation with the same filter. A server which provides a
- gateway to X.500 is not required to use the Read or List operations,
- although it may choose to do so, and if it does, it must provide the
- same semantics as the X.500 search operation.
+ - The attribute type does not define the appropriate matching
+ rule.
+ - A MatchingRuleId in the extensibleMatch is not recognized by
+ the server or is not valid for the attribute type.
-4.5.2. Search Result
+ - The type of filtering requested is not implemented.
- The results of the search attempted by the server upon receipt of a
- Search Request are returned in Search Responses, which are LDAP
- messages containing either SearchResultEntry, SearchResultReference,
- or SearchResultDone data types.
+ - The assertion value is invalid.
- SearchResultEntry ::= [APPLICATION 4] SEQUENCE {
- objectName LDAPDN,
- attributes PartialAttributeList }
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 22
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ For example, if a server did not recognize the attribute type
+ shoeSize, a filter of (shoeSize=*) would evaluate to FALSE, and the
+ filters (shoeSize=12), (shoeSize>=12) and (shoeSize<=12) would each
+ evaluate to Undefined.
- PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- vals SET OF AttributeValue }
- -- implementors should note that the PartialAttributeList may
- -- have zero elements (if none of the attributes of that entry
- -- were requested, or could be returned), and that the vals set
- -- may also have zero elements (if types only was requested, or
- -- all values were excluded from the result.)
+ Servers MUST NOT return errors if attribute descriptions or matching
+ rule ids are not recognized, assertion values are invalid, or the
+ assertion syntax is not supported. More details of filter processing
+ are given in Clause 7.8 of [X.511].
+
+
+4.5.1.7.1 SearchRequest.filter.equalityMatch
- SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL
- -- at least one LDAPURL element must be present
+ The matching rule for equalityMatch filter items is defined by the
+ EQUALITY matching rule for the attribute type.
- SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult
- Upon receipt of a Search Request, a server will perform the necessary
- search of the DIT.
+4.5.1.7.2 SearchRequest.filter.substrings
- If the LDAP session is operating over a connection-oriented transport
- such as TCP, the server will return to the client a sequence of
- responses in separate LDAP messages. There may be zero or more
- responses containing SearchResultEntry, one for each entry found
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 20 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- during the search. There may also be zero or more responses
- containing SearchResultReference, one for each area not explored by
- this server during the search. The SearchResultEntry and
- SearchResultReference PDUs may come in any order. Following all the
- SearchResultReference responses and all SearchResultEntry responses
- to be returned by the server, the server will return a response
- containing the SearchResultDone, which contains an indication of
- success, or detailing any errors that have occurred.
+ There SHALL be at most one 'initial', and at most one 'final' in the
+ 'substrings' of a SubstringFilter. If 'initial' is present, it SHALL
+ be the first element of 'substrings'. If 'final' is present, it SHALL
+ be the last element of 'substrings'.
- Each entry returned in a SearchResultEntry will contain all
- appropriate attributes as specified in the attributes field of the
- Search Request. Return of attributes is subject to access control and
- other administrative policy.
+ The matching rule for an AssertionValue in a substrings filter item
+ is defined by the SUBSTR matching rule for the attribute type. Note
+ that the AssertionValue in a substrings filter item conforms to the
+ assertion syntax of the EQUALITY matching rule for the attribute type
+ rather than the assertion syntax of the SUBSTR matching rule for the
+ attribute type. Conceptually, the entire SubstringFilter is converted
+ into an assertion value of the substrings matching rule prior to
+ applying the rule.
+
+
+4.5.1.7.3 SearchRequest.filter.greaterOrEqual
+
+ The matching rule for the greaterOrEqual filter item is defined by
+ the ORDERING and EQUALITY matching rules for the attribute type.
+
+
+4.5.1.7.4 SearchRequest.filter.lessOrEqual
+
+ The matching rule for the lessOrEqual filter item is defined by the
+ ORDERING matching rule for the attribute type.
+
+
+4.5.1.7.5 SearchRequest.filter.present
+
+ The present match evaluates to TRUE where there is an attribute or
+ subtype of the specified attribute description present in an entry,
+ and FALSE otherwise (including a presence test with an unrecognized
+ attribute description).
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 23
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+4.5.1.7.6 SearchRequest.filter.approxMatch
+
+ An approxMatch filter item evaluates to TRUE when there is a value of
+ the attribute or subtype for which some locally-defined approximate
+ matching algorithm (e.g. spelling variations, phonetic match, etc.)
+ returns TRUE. If an item matches for equality, it also satisfies an
+ approximate match. If approximate matching is not supported for the
+ attribute, this filter item should be treated as an equalityMatch.
+
+
+4.5.1.7.7 SearchRequest.filter.extensibleMatch
+
+ The fields of the extensibleMatch filter item are evaluated as
+ follows:
+
+ - If the matchingRule field is absent, the type field MUST be
+ present, and an equality match is performed for that type.
+
+ - If the type field is absent and the matchingRule is present, the
+ matchValue is compared against all attributes in an entry which
+ support that matchingRule.
+
+ - If the type field is present and the matchingRule is present, the
+ matchValue is compared against entry attributes of the specified
+ type.
+
+ - If the dnAttributes field is set to TRUE, the match is
+ additionally applied against all the AttributeValueAssertions in
+ an entry's distinguished name, and evaluates to TRUE if there is
+ at least one attribute in the distinguished name for which the
+ filter item evaluates to TRUE. The dnAttributes field is present
+ to alleviate the need for multiple versions of generic matching
+ rules (such as word matching), where one applies to entries and
+ another applies to entries and DN attributes as well.
+
+ The matchingRule used for evaluation determines the syntax for the
+ assertion value. Once the matchingRule and attribute(s) have been
+ determined, the filter item evaluates to TRUE if it matches with at
+ least one attribute in the entry, FALSE if it does not match any
+ attribute in the entry, and Undefined if the matchingRule is not
+ recognized, the matchingRule is unsuitable for use with the specified
+ type, or the assertionValue is invalid.
+
+
+4.5.1.7 SearchRequest.attributes
+
+ A selection list of the attributes to be returned from each entry
+ which matches the search filter. LDAPString values of this field are
+ constrained to the following Augmented Backus-Naur Form ([ABNF]):
+
+ attributeSelector = attributedescription / selectorspecial
+
+ selectorspecial = noattrs / alluserattrs
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 24
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ noattrs = %x31.2E.31 ; "1.1"
+
+ alluserattrs = %x2A ; asterisk ("*")
+
+ The <attributedescription> production is defined in Section 2.5 of
+ [Models].
+
+ There are three special cases which may appear in the attributes
+ selection list:
+
+ - an empty list with no attributes,
+
+ - a list containing "*" (with zero or more attribute
+ descriptions), and
+
+ - a list containing only "1.1".
+
+ An empty list requests the return of all user attributes.
+
+ A list containing "*" requests the return of all user attributes
+ in addition to other listed (operational) attributes.
+
+ A list containing only the OID "1.1" indicates that no attributes
+ are to be returned. If "1.1" is provided with other
+ attributeSelector values, the "1.1" attributeSelector is ignored.
+ This OID was chosen because it does not (and can not) correspond
+ to any attribute in use.
+
+ Client implementors should note that even if all user attributes are
+ requested, some attributes and/or attribute values of the entry may
+ not be included in Search results due to access controls or other
+ restrictions. Furthermore, servers will not return operational
+ attributes, such as objectClasses or attributeTypes, unless they are
+ listed by name. Operational attributes are described in [Models].
+
+ Attributes are returned at most once in an entry. If an attribute
+ description is named more than once in the list, the subsequent names
+ are ignored. If an attribute description in the list is not
+ recognized, it is ignored by the server.
+
+
+4.5.2. Search Result
+
+ The results of the Search operation are returned as zero or more
+ SearchResultEntry and/or SearchResultReference messages, followed by
+ a single SearchResultDone message.
+
+ SearchResultEntry ::= [APPLICATION 4] SEQUENCE {
+ objectName LDAPDN,
+ attributes PartialAttributeList }
+
+ PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF
+ partialAttribute PartialAttribute
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 25
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE
+ SIZE (1..MAX) OF uri URI
+
+ SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult
+
+ Each SearchResultEntry represents an entry found during the Search.
+ Each SearchResultReference represents an area not yet explored during
+ the Search. The SearchResultEntry and SearchResultReference PDUs may
+ come in any order. Following all the SearchResultReference and
+ SearchResultEntry responses, the server returns a SearchResultDone
+ response, which contains an indication of success, or detailing any
+ errors that have occurred.
+
+ Each entry returned in a SearchResultEntry will contain all
+ appropriate attributes as specified in the attributes field of the
+ Search Request, subject to access control and other administrative
+ policy. Note that the PartialAttributeList may hold zero elements.
+ This may happen when none of the attributes of an entry were
+ requested, or could be returned. Note also that the partialAttribute
+ vals set may hold zero elements. This may happen when typesOnly is
+ requested, access controls prevent the return of values, or other
+ reasons.
Some attributes may be constructed by the server and appear in a
SearchResultEntry attribute list, although they are not stored
attributes of an entry. Clients SHOULD NOT assume that all attributes
can be modified, even if permitted by access control.
- If the server's schema defines a textual name for an attribute type,
- it MUST use a textual name for attributes of that attribute type by
- specifying one of the textual names as the value of the attribute
- type. Otherwise, the server uses the object identifier for the
- attribute type by specifying the object identifier, in ldapOID form,
- as the value of attribute type.
+ If the server's schema defines short names [Models] for an attribute
+ type then the server SHOULD use one of those names in attribute
+ descriptions for that attribute type (in preference to using the
+ <numericoid> [Models] format of the attribute type's object
+ identifier). The server SHOULD NOT use the short name if that name is
+ known by the server to be ambiguous, or otherwise likely to cause
+ interoperability problems.
4.5.3. Continuation References in the Search Result
If the server was able to locate the entry referred to by the
- baseObject but was unable to search all the entries in the scope at
- and under the baseObject, the server may return one or more
- SearchResultReference entries, each containing a reference to another
- set of servers for continuing the operation. A server MUST NOT return
- any SearchResultReference if it has not located the baseObject and
- thus has not searched any entries; in this case it would return a
- SearchResultDone containing a referral resultCode.
+ baseObject but was unable or unwilling to search one or more non-
+ local entries, the server may return one or more
+ SearchResultReference messages, each containing a reference to
+ another set of servers for continuing the operation. A server MUST
+ NOT return any SearchResultReference messages if it has not located
+ the baseObject and thus has not searched any entries; in this case it
+ would return a SearchResultDone containing either a referral or
+ noSuchObject result code (depending on the server's knowledge of the
+ entry named in the baseObject).
- If a server holds a copy or partial copy of the subordinate naming
- context, it may use the search filter to determine whether or not to
- return a SearchResultReference response. Otherwise
- SearchResultReference responses are always returned when in scope.
-
- The SearchResultReference is of the same data type as the Referral.
- URLs for servers implementing the LDAP protocol are written according
- to [LDAPURL]. The <dn> part MUST be present in the URL, with the new
- target object name. The client MUST use this name in its next
- request. Some servers (e.g. part of a distributed index exchange
- system) may provide a different filter in the URLs of the
- SearchResultReference. If the filter part of the URL is present in an
- LDAP URL, the client MUST use the new filter in its next request to
- progress the search, and if the filter part is absent the client will
- use again the same filter. If the originating search scope was
- singleLevel, the scope part of the URL will be baseObject. Other
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 21 \f
+
+
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 26
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- aspects of the new search request may be the same or different as the
- search which generated the continuation references.
- Other kinds of URLs may be returned so long as the operation could be
- performed using that protocol.
+ If a server holds a copy or partial copy of the subordinate naming
+ context (Section 5 of [Models]), it may use the search filter to
+ determine whether or not to return a SearchResultReference response.
+ Otherwise SearchResultReference responses are always returned when in
+ scope.
+
+ The SearchResultReference is of the same data type as the Referral.
+
+ If the client wishes to progress the Search, it issues a new Search
+ operation for each SearchResultReference that is returned. If
+ multiple URIs are present, the client assumes that any supported URI
+ may be used to progress the operation.
+
+ Clients that follow search continuation references MUST ensure that
+ they do not loop between servers. They MUST NOT repeatedly contact
+ the same server for the same request with the same parameters. Some
+ clients use a counter that is incremented each time search result
+ reference handling occurs for an operation, and these kinds of
+ clients MUST be able to handle at least ten nested referrals while
+ progressing the operation.
+
+ Note that the Abandon operation described in Section 4.11 applies
+ only to a particular operation sent at the LDAP message layer between
+ a client and server. The client must abandon subsequent Search
+ operations it wishes to individually.
+
+ A URI for a server implementing LDAP and accessible via [TCP]/[IP]
+ (v4 or v6) is written as an LDAP URL according to [LDAPURL].
+
+ SearchResultReference values which are LDAP URLs follow these rules:
+
+ - The <dn> part of the LDAP URL MUST be present, with the new target
+ object name. The client uses this name when following the
+ reference.
+
+ - Some servers (e.g. participating in distributed indexing) may
+ provide a different filter in the LDAP URL.
+
+ - If the <filter> part of the LDAP URL is present, the client uses
+ this filter in its next request to progress this Search, and if it
+ is not present the client uses the same filter as it used for that
+ Search.
- The name of an unexplored subtree in a SearchResultReference need not
- be subordinate to the base object.
+ - If the originating search scope was singleLevel, the <scope> part
+ of the LDAP URL will be "base".
- In order to complete the search, the client MUST issue a new search
- operation for each SearchResultReference that is returned. Note that
- the abandon operation described in section 4.11 applies only to a
- particular operation sent on a connection between a client and
- server, and if the client has multiple outstanding search operations,
- it MUST abandon each operation individually.
+ - It is RECOMMENDED that the <scope> part be present to avoid
+ ambiguity. In the absence of a <scope> part, the scope of the
+ original Search request is assumed.
+ - Other aspects of the new Search request may be the same as or
+ different from the Search request which generated the
+ SearchResultReference.
-4.5.3.1. Example
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 27
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ - The name of an unexplored subtree in a SearchResultReference need
+ not be subordinate to the base object.
+
+ Other kinds of URIs may be returned. The syntax and semantics of such
+ URIs is left to future specifications. Clients may ignore URIs that
+ they do not support.
+
+ UTF-8 encoded characters appearing in the string representation of a
+ DN, search filter, or other fields of the referral value may not be
+ legal for URIs (e.g. spaces) and MUST be escaped using the % method
+ in [URI].
+
+
+
+4.5.3.1. Examples
For example, suppose the contacted server (hosta) holds the entry
- "DC=Example,DC=NET" and the entry "CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET". It
- knows that either LDAP-capable servers (hostb) or (hostc) hold
- "OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET" (one is the master and the other server
+ <DC=Example,DC=NET> and the entry <CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET>. It
+ knows that both LDAP servers (hostb) and (hostc) hold
+ <OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET> (one is the master and the other server
a shadow), and that LDAP-capable server (hostd) holds the subtree
- "OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET". If a subtree search of
- "DC=Example,DC=NET" is requested to the contacted server, it may
+ <OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET>. If a wholeSubtree Search of
+ <DC=Example,DC=NET> is requested to the contacted server, it may
return the following:
SearchResultEntry for DC=Example,DC=NET
SearchResultEntry for CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET
SearchResultReference {
- ldap://hostb/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
- ldap://hostc/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
- }
+ ldap://hostb/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET??sub
+ ldap://hostc/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET??sub }
SearchResultReference {
- ldap://hostd/OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET
- }
+ ldap://hostd/OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET??sub }
SearchResultDone (success)
Client implementors should note that when following a
SearchResultReference, additional SearchResultReference may be
generated. Continuing the example, if the client contacted the server
- (hostb) and issued the search for the subtree
- "OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET", the server might respond as follows:
+ (hostb) and issued the Search request for the subtree
+ <OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET>, the server might respond as follows:
SearchResultEntry for OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
SearchResultReference {
- ldap://hoste/OU=Managers,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
- }
+ ldap://hoste/OU=Managers,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET??sub }
SearchResultReference {
- ldap://hostf/OU=Consultants,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET
- }
+ ldap://hostf/OU=Consultants,OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET??sub }
SearchResultDone (success)
+ Similarly, if a singleLevel Search of <DC=Example,DC=NET> is
+ requested to the contacted server, it may return the following:
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 22 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 28
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- If the contacted server does not hold the base object for the search,
- then it will return a referral to the client. For example, if the
- client requests a subtree search of "DC=Example,DC=ORG" to hosta, the
- server may return only a SearchResultDone containing a referral.
+ SearchResultEntry for CN=Manager,DC=Example,DC=NET
+ SearchResultReference {
+ ldap://hostb/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET??base
+ ldap://hostc/OU=People,DC=Example,DC=NET??base }
+ SearchResultReference {
+ ldap://hostd/OU=Roles,DC=Example,DC=NET??base }
+ SearchResultDone (success)
+
+ If the contacted server does not hold the base object for the Search,
+ but has knowledge of its possible location, then it may return a
+ referral to the client. In this case, if the client requests a
+ subtree Search of <DC=Example,DC=ORG> to hosta, the server returns a
+ SearchResultDone containing a referral.
SearchResultDone (referral) {
- ldap://hostg/DC=Example,DC=ORG??sub
- }
+ ldap://hostg/DC=Example,DC=ORG??sub }
4.6. Modify Operation
- The Modify Operation allows a client to request that a modification
+ The Modify operation allows a client to request that a modification
of an entry be performed on its behalf by a server. The Modify
Request is defined as follows:
ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE {
- object LDAPDN,
- modification SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
- operation ENUMERATED {
- add (0),
- delete (1),
- replace (2) },
- modification AttributeTypeAndValues } }
-
- AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- vals SET OF AttributeValue }
-
- Parameters of the Modify Request are:
-
- - object: The object to be modified. The value of this field
- contains the DN of the entry to be modified. The server will not
- perform any alias dereferencing in determining the object to be
- modified.
-
- - modification: A list of modifications to be performed on the
- entry. The entire list of entry modifications MUST be performed in
- the order they are listed, as a single atomic operation. While
- individual modifications may violate the directory schema, the
+ object LDAPDN,
+ changes SEQUENCE OF change SEQUENCE {
+ operation ENUMERATED {
+ add (0),
+ delete (1),
+ replace (2),
+ ... },
+ modification PartialAttribute } }
+
+ Fields of the Modify Request are:
+
+ - object: The value of this field contains the name of the entry to
+ be modified. The server SHALL NOT perform any alias dereferencing
+ in determining the object to be modified.
+
+ - changes: A list of modifications to be performed on the entry. The
+ entire list of modifications MUST be performed in the order they
+ are listed as a single atomic operation. While individual
+ modifications may violate certain aspects of the directory schema
+ (such as the object class definition and DIT content rule), the
resulting entry after the entire list of modifications is
- performed MUST conform to the requirements of the directory
- schema. The values that may be taken on by the 'operation' field
- in each modification construct have the following semantics
- respectively:
-
- add: add values listed to the given attribute, creating the
- attribute if necessary;
-
- delete: delete values listed from the given attribute,
- removing the entire attribute if no values are listed, or
- if all current values of the attribute are listed for
- deletion;
+ performed MUST conform to the requirements of the directory model
+ and controlling schema [Models].
+
+ - operation: Used to specify the type of modification being
+ performed. Each operation type acts on the following
+ modification. The values of this field have the following
+ semantics respectively:
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 23 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 29
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- replace: replace all existing values of the given attribute
- with the new values listed, creating the attribute if it
- did not already exist. A replace with no value will delete
- the entire attribute if it exists, and is ignored if the
- attribute does not exist.
-
- The result of the modification attempted by the server upon receipt
- of a Modify Request is returned in a Modify Response, defined as
- follows:
+ add: add values listed to the modification attribute,
+ creating the attribute if necessary;
+
+ delete: delete values listed from the modification attribute.
+ If no values are listed, or if all current values of the
+ attribute are listed, the entire attribute is removed;
+
+ replace: replace all existing values of the modification
+ attribute with the new values listed, creating the attribute
+ if it did not already exist. A replace with no value will
+ delete the entire attribute if it exists, and is ignored if
+ the attribute does not exist.
- ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult
+ - modification: A PartialAttribute (which may have an empty SET
+ of vals) used to hold the attribute type or attribute type and
+ values being modified.
- Upon receipt of a Modify Request, a server will perform the necessary
- modifications to the DIT.
+ Upon receipt of a Modify Request, the server attempts to perform the
+ necessary modifications to the DIT and returns the result in a Modify
+ Response, defined as follows:
+
+ ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult
The server will return to the client a single Modify Response
indicating either the successful completion of the DIT modification,
- or the reason that the modification failed. Note that due to the
- requirement for atomicity in applying the list of modifications in
- the Modify Request, the client may expect that no modifications of
- the DIT have been performed if the Modify Response received indicates
- any sort of error, and that all requested modifications have been
- performed if the Modify Response indicates successful completion of
- the Modify Operation. If the connection fails, whether the
- modification occurred or not is indeterminate.
-
- The Modify Operation cannot be used to remove from an entry any of
- its distinguished values, those values which form the entry's
- relative distinguished name. An attempt to do so will result in the
- server returning the error notAllowedOnRDN. The Modify DN Operation
- described in section 4.9 is used to rename an entry.
+ or the reason that the modification failed. Due to the requirement
+ for atomicity in applying the list of modifications in the Modify
+ Request, the client may expect that no modifications of the DIT have
+ been performed if the Modify Response received indicates any sort of
+ error, and that all requested modifications have been performed if
+ the Modify Response indicates successful completion of the Modify
+ operation. Whether the modification was applied or not cannot be
+ determined by the client if the Modify Response was not received
+ (e.g. the LDAP session was terminated or the Modify operation was
+ abandoned).
+
+ Servers MUST ensure that entries conform to user and system schema
+ rules or other data model constraints. The Modify operation cannot be
+ used to remove from an entry any of its distinguished values, i.e.
+ those values which form the entry's relative distinguished name. An
+ attempt to do so will result in the server returning the
+ notAllowedOnRDN result code. The Modify DN operation described in
+ Section 4.9 is used to rename an entry.
+
+ For attribute types which specify no equality matching, the rules in
+ Section 2.5.1 of [Models] are followed.
Note that due to the simplifications made in LDAP, there is not a
- direct mapping of the modifications in an LDAP ModifyRequest onto the
- EntryModifications of a DAP ModifyEntry operation, and different
- implementations of LDAP-DAP gateways may use different means of
- representing the change. If successful, the final effect of the
- operations on the entry MUST be identical.
+ direct mapping of the changes in an LDAP ModifyRequest onto the
+ changes of a DAP ModifyEntry operation, and different implementations
+ of LDAP-DAP gateways may use different means of representing the
+ change. If successful, the final effect of the operations on the
+ entry MUST be identical.
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 30
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
4.7. Add Operation
- The Add Operation allows a client to request the addition of an entry
- into the directory. The Add Request is defined as follows:
+ The Add operation allows a client to request the addition of an entry
+ into the Directory. The Add Request is defined as follows:
AddRequest ::= [APPLICATION 8] SEQUENCE {
- entry LDAPDN,
- attributes AttributeList }
+ entry LDAPDN,
+ attributes AttributeList }
- AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- vals SET OF AttributeValue }
+ AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF attribute Attribute
- Parameters of the Add Request are:
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 24 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
+ Fields of the Add Request are:
- - entry: the Distinguished Name of the entry to be added. Note that
- the server will not dereference any aliases in locating the entry
- to be added.
+ - entry: the name of the entry to be added. The server SHALL NOT
+ dereference any aliases in locating the entry to be added.
- - attributes: the list of attributes that make up the content of the
- entry being added. Clients MUST include distinguished values
- (those forming the entry's own RDN) in this list, the objectClass
- attribute, and values of any mandatory attributes of the listed
- object classes. Clients MUST NOT supply NO-USER-MODIFICATION
- attributes such as the createTimestamp or creatorsName attributes,
- since the server maintains these automatically.
+ - attributes: the list of attributes that, along with those from the
+ RDN, make up the content of the entry being added. Clients MAY or
+ MAY NOT include the RDN attribute(s) in this list. Clients MUST
+ NOT supply NO-USER-MODIFICATION attributes such as the
+ createTimestamp or creatorsName attributes, since the server
+ maintains these automatically.
+
+ Servers MUST ensure that entries conform to user and system schema
+ rules or other data model constraints. For attribute types which
+ specify no equality matching, the rules in Section 2.5.1 of [Models]
+ are followed (this applies to the naming attribute in addition to any
+ multi-valued attributes being added).
The entry named in the entry field of the AddRequest MUST NOT exist
- for the AddRequest to succeed. The parent of the object and alias
- entries to be added MUST exist. For example, if the client attempted
- to add "CN=JS,DC=Example,DC=NET", the "DC=Example,DC=NET" entry did
- not exist, and the "DC=NET" entry did exist, then the server would
- return the error noSuchObject with the matchedDN field containing
- "DC=NET". If the parent entry exists but is not in a naming context
- held by the server, the server SHOULD return a referral to the server
- holding the parent entry.
-
- Server implementations SHOULD NOT restrict where entries can be
- located in the directory unless DIT structure rules are in place.
- Some servers MAY allow the administrator to restrict the classes of
- entries which can be added to the directory.
+ for the AddRequest to succeed. The immediate superior (parent) of an
+ object or alias entry to be added MUST exist. For example, if the
+ client attempted to add <CN=JS,DC=Example,DC=NET>, the
+ <DC=Example,DC=NET> entry did not exist, and the <DC=NET> entry did
+ exist, then the server would return the noSuchObject result code with
+ the matchedDN field containing <DC=NET>.
Upon receipt of an Add Request, a server will attempt to add the
- requested entry. The result of the add attempt will be returned to
+ requested entry. The result of the Add attempt will be returned to
the client in the Add Response, defined as follows:
AddResponse ::= [APPLICATION 9] LDAPResult
- A response of success indicates that the new entry is present in the
- directory.
+ A response of success indicates that the new entry has been added to
+ the Directory.
4.8. Delete Operation
- The Delete Operation allows a client to request the removal of an
- entry from the directory. The Delete Request is defined as follows:
+ The Delete operation allows a client to request the removal of an
+ entry from the Directory. The Delete Request is defined as follows:
DelRequest ::= [APPLICATION 10] LDAPDN
-
- The Delete Request consists of the Distinguished Name of the entry to
- be deleted. Note that the server will not dereference aliases while
- resolving the name of the target entry to be removed, and that only
- leaf entries (those with no subordinate entries) can be deleted with
- this operation.
-
- The result of the delete attempted by the server upon receipt of a
- Delete Request is returned in the Delete Response, defined as
- follows:
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 25 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 31
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- DelResponse ::= [APPLICATION 11] LDAPResult
+ The Delete Request consists of the name of the entry to be deleted.
+ The server SHALL NOT dereference aliases while resolving the name of
+ the target entry to be removed.
+
+ Only leaf entries (those with no subordinate entries) can be deleted
+ with this operation.
Upon receipt of a Delete Request, a server will attempt to perform
- the entry removal requested. The result of the delete attempt will be
- returned to the client in the Delete Response.
+ the entry removal requested and return the result in the Delete
+ Response defined as follows:
+
+ DelResponse ::= [APPLICATION 11] LDAPResult
4.9. Modify DN Operation
- The Modify DN Operation allows a client to change the leftmost (least
- significant) component of the name of an entry in the directory,
- and/or to move a subtree of entries to a new location in the
- directory. The Modify DN Request is defined as follows:
+ The Modify DN operation allows a client to change the Relative
+ Distinguished Name (RDN) of an entry in the Directory, and/or to move
+ a subtree of entries to a new location in the Directory. The Modify
+ DN Request is defined as follows:
ModifyDNRequest ::= [APPLICATION 12] SEQUENCE {
- entry LDAPDN,
- newrdn RelativeLDAPDN,
- deleteoldrdn BOOLEAN,
- newSuperior [0] LDAPDN OPTIONAL }
+ entry LDAPDN,
+ newrdn RelativeLDAPDN,
+ deleteoldrdn BOOLEAN,
+ newSuperior [0] LDAPDN OPTIONAL }
- Parameters of the Modify DN Request are:
+ Fields of the Modify DN Request are:
- - entry: the Distinguished Name of the entry to be changed. This
- entry may or may not have subordinate entries. Note that the
- server will not dereference any aliases in locating the entry to
- be changed.
+ - entry: the name of the entry to be changed. This entry may or may
+ not have subordinate entries.
- - newrdn: the RDN that will form the leftmost component of the new
- name of the entry.
-
- - deleteoldrdn: a boolean parameter that controls whether the old
- RDN attribute values are to be retained as attributes of the
- entry, or deleted from the entry.
+ - newrdn: the new RDN of the entry. The value of the old RDN is
+ supplied when moving the entry to a new superior without changing
+ its RDN. Attribute values of the new RDN not matching any
+ attribute value of the entry are added to the entry and an
+ appropriate error is returned if this fails.
+
+ - deleteoldrdn: a boolean field that controls whether the old RDN
+ attribute values are to be retained as attributes of the entry, or
+ deleted from the entry.
- - newSuperior: if present, this is the Distinguished Name of an
- existing object entry which becomes the immediate superior of the
+ - newSuperior: if present, this is the name of an existing object
+ entry which becomes the immediate superior (parent) of the
existing entry.
- The result of the name change attempted by the server upon receipt of
- a Modify DN Request is returned in the Modify DN Response, defined as
- follows:
-
- ModifyDNResponse ::= [APPLICATION 13] LDAPResult
+ The server SHALL NOT dereference any aliases in locating the objects
+ named in entry or newSuperior.
Upon receipt of a ModifyDNRequest, a server will attempt to perform
- the name change. The result of the name change attempt will be
- returned to the client in the Modify DN Response.
+ the name change and return the result in the Modify DN Response,
+ defined as follows:
- For example, if the entry named in the "entry" parameter was "cn=John
- Smith,c=US", the newrdn parameter was "cn=John Cougar Smith", and the
- newSuperior parameter was absent, then this operation would attempt
- to rename the entry to be "cn=John Cougar Smith,c=US". If there was
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 26 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 32
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- already an entry with that name, the operation would fail with error
- code entryAlreadyExists.
+ ModifyDNResponse ::= [APPLICATION 13] LDAPResult
- If the deleteoldrdn parameter is TRUE, the values forming the old RDN
- are deleted from the entry. If the deleteoldrdn parameter is FALSE,
- the values forming the old RDN will be retained as non-distinguished
- attribute values of the entry. The server may not perform the
- operation and return an error code if the setting of the deleteoldrdn
- parameter would cause a schema inconsistency in the entry.
+ For example, if the entry named in the entry field was <cn=John
+ Smith,c=US>, the newrdn field was <cn=John Cougar Smith>, and the
+ newSuperior field was absent, then this operation would attempt to
+ rename the entry to be <cn=John Cougar Smith,c=US>. If there was
+ already an entry with that name, the operation would fail with the
+ entryAlreadyExists result code.
+
+ Servers MUST ensure that entries conform to user and system schema
+ rules or other data model constraints. For attribute types which
+ specify no equality matching, the rules in Section 2.5.1 of [Models]
+ are followed (this pertains to newrdn and deleteoldrdn).
+
+ The object named in newSuperior MUST exist. For example, if the
+ client attempted to add <CN=JS,DC=Example,DC=NET>, the
+ <DC=Example,DC=NET> entry did not exist, and the <DC=NET> entry did
+ exist, then the server would return the noSuchObject result code with
+ the matchedDN field containing <DC=NET>.
+
+ If the deleteoldrdn field is TRUE, the attribute values forming the
+ old RDN but not the new RDN are deleted from the entry. If the
+ deleteoldrdn field is FALSE, the attribute values forming the old RDN
+ will be retained as non-distinguished attribute values of the entry.
Note that X.500 restricts the ModifyDN operation to only affect
entries that are contained within a single server. If the LDAP server
is mapped onto DAP, then this restriction will apply, and the
- resultCode affectsMultipleDSAs will be returned if this error
- occurred. In general clients MUST NOT expect to be able to perform
- arbitrary movements of entries and subtrees between servers.
+ affectsMultipleDSAs result code will be returned if this error
+ occurred. In general, clients MUST NOT expect to be able to perform
+ arbitrary movements of entries and subtrees between servers or
+ between naming contexts.
4.10. Compare Operation
- The Compare Operation allows a client to compare an assertion
- provided with an entry in the directory. The Compare Request is
- defined as follows:
+ The Compare operation allows a client to compare an assertion value
+ with the values of a particular attribute in a particular entry in
+ the Directory. The Compare Request is defined as follows:
CompareRequest ::= [APPLICATION 14] SEQUENCE {
- entry LDAPDN,
- ava AttributeValueAssertion }
+ entry LDAPDN,
+ ava AttributeValueAssertion }
- Parameters of the Compare Request are:
+ Fields of the Compare Request are:
- - entry: the name of the entry to be compared with. Note that the
- server SHOULD NOT dereference any aliases in locating the entry to
- be compared with.
+ - entry: the name of the entry to be compared. The server SHALL NOT
+ dereference any aliases in locating the entry to be compared.
- - ava: the assertion with which an attribute in the entry is to be
- compared.
+ - ava: holds the attribute value assertion to be compared.
- The result of the compare attempted by the server upon receipt of a
- Compare Request is returned in the Compare Response, defined as
- follows:
+ Upon receipt of a Compare Request, a server will attempt to perform
+ the requested comparison and return the result in the Compare
+ Response, defined as follows:
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 33
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
CompareResponse ::= [APPLICATION 15] LDAPResult
- Upon receipt of a Compare Request, a server will attempt to perform
- the requested comparison using the EQUALITY matching rule for the
- attribute type. The result of the comparison will be returned to the
- client in the Compare Response. Note that errors and the result of
- comparison are all returned in the same construct.
+ The resultCode is set to compareTrue, compareFalse, or an appropriate
+ error. compareTrue indicates that the assertion value in the ava
+ field matches a value of the attribute or subtype according to the
+ attribute's EQUALITY matching rule. compareFalse indicates that the
+ assertion value in the ava field and the values of the attribute or
+ subtype did not match. Other result codes indicate either that the
+ result of the comparison was Undefined (Section 4.5.1), or that some
+ error occurred.
Note that some directory systems may establish access controls which
permit the values of certain attributes (such as userPassword) to be
compared but not interrogated by other means.
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 27 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
4.11. Abandon Operation
- The function of the Abandon Operation is to allow a client to request
- that the server abandon an outstanding operation. The Abandon Request
+ The function of the Abandon operation is to allow a client to request
+ that the server abandon an uncompleted operation. The Abandon Request
is defined as follows:
AbandonRequest ::= [APPLICATION 16] MessageID
- The MessageID MUST be that of an operation which was requested
- earlier in this connection. The abandon request itself has its own
- message id. This is distinct from the id of the earlier operation
- being abandoned.
+ The MessageID is that of an operation which was requested earlier at
+ this LDAP message layer. The Abandon request itself has its own
+ MessageID. This is distinct from the MessageID of the earlier
+ operation being abandoned.
- There is no response defined in the Abandon Operation. Upon
- transmission of an Abandon Operation, the server MAY abandon the
- operation identified by the Message ID in the Abandon Request.
- Operation responses are not sent for successfully abandoned
- operations. Clients can determine that an operation has been
- abandoned by performing a subsequent bind operation.
+ There is no response defined in the Abandon operation. Upon receipt
+ of an AbandonRequest, the server MAY abandon the operation identified
+ by the MessageID. Since the client cannot tell the difference between
+ a successfully abandoned operation and an uncompleted operation, the
+ application of the Abandon operation is limited to uses where the
+ client does not require an indication of its outcome.
- Abandon and Unbind operations cannot be abandoned. The ability to
- abandon other (particularly update) operations is at the discretion
- of the server.
+ Abandon, Bind, Unbind, and StartTLS operations cannot be abandoned.
In the event that a server receives an Abandon Request on a Search
- Operation in the midst of transmitting responses to the search, that
+ operation in the midst of transmitting responses to the Search, that
server MUST cease transmitting entry responses to the abandoned
- request immediately, and MUST NOT send the SearchResponseDone. Of
+ request immediately, and MUST NOT send the SearchResultDone. Of
course, the server MUST ensure that only properly encoded LDAPMessage
PDUs are transmitted.
- Clients MUST NOT send abandon requests for the same operation
+ The ability to abandon other (particularly update) operations is at
+ the discretion of the server.
+
+ Clients should not send Abandon requests for the same operation
multiple times, and MUST also be prepared to receive results from
operations it has abandoned (since these may have been in transit
- when the abandon was requested, or are not able to be abandoned).
+ when the Abandon was requested, or are not able to be abandoned).
- Servers MUST discard abandon requests for message IDs they do not
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 34
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ Servers MUST discard Abandon requests for message IDs they do not
recognize, for operations which cannot be abandoned, and for
operations which have already been abandoned.
4.12. Extended Operation
- An extension mechanism has been added in this version of LDAP, in
- order to allow additional operations to be defined for services not
- available elsewhere in this protocol, for instance digitally signed
- operations and results.
+ The Extended operation allows additional operations to be defined for
+ services not already available in the protocol. For example, to Add
+ operations to install transport layer security (see Section 4.14).
- The extended operation allows clients to make requests and receive
+ The Extended operation allows clients to make requests and receive
responses with predefined syntaxes and semantics. These may be
- defined in RFCs or be private to particular implementations. Each
- request MUST have a unique OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to it.
+ defined in RFCs or be private to particular implementations.
+
+ Each Extended operation consists of an Extended request and an
+ Extended response.
ExtendedRequest ::= [APPLICATION 23] SEQUENCE {
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 28 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- requestName [0] LDAPOID,
- requestValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+ requestName [0] LDAPOID,
+ requestValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
- The requestName is a dotted-decimal representation of the OBJECT
- IDENTIFIER corresponding to the request. The requestValue is
+ The requestName is a dotted-decimal representation of the unique
+ OBJECT IDENTIFIER corresponding to the request. The requestValue is
information in a form defined by that request, encapsulated inside an
OCTET STRING.
- The server will respond to this with an LDAPMessage containing the
+ The server will respond to this with an LDAPMessage containing an
ExtendedResponse.
ExtendedResponse ::= [APPLICATION 24] SEQUENCE {
- COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
- responseName [10] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
- response [11] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+ COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
+ responseName [10] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
+ responseValue [11] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
- If the server does not recognize the request name, it MUST return
- only the response fields from LDAPResult, containing the
- protocolError result code.
+ The responseName is typically not required to be present as the
+ syntax and semantics of the response (including the format of the
+ responseValue) is implicitly known and associated with the request by
+ the messageID.
-4.13. Start TLS Operation
-
- The Start Transport Layer Security (StartTLS) operation provides the
- ability to establish Transport Layer Security [RFC2246] on an LDAP
- connection.
+ If the Extended operation associated with the requestName is not
+ supported by the server, the server MUST NOT provide a responseName
+ nor a responseValue and MUST return with resultCode set to
+ protocolError.
-4.13.1. Start TLS Request
+ The requestValue and responseValue fields contain any information
+ associated with the operation. The format of these fields is defined
+ by the specification of the Extended operation. Implementations MUST
+ be prepared to handle arbitrary contents of these fields, including
+ zero bytes. Values that are defined in terms of ASN.1 and BER encoded
+ according to Section 5.1, also follow the extensibility rules in
+ Section 4.
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 35
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ Servers list the requestName of Extended Requests they recognize in
+ the 'supportedExtension' attribute in the root DSE (Section 5.1 of
+ [Models]).
- A client requests TLS establishment by transmitting a Start TLS
- request PDU to the server. The Start TLS request is defined in terms
- of an ExtendedRequest. The requestName is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037",
- and the requestValue field is absent.
+ Extended operations may be specified in other documents. The
+ specification of an Extended operation consists of:
- The client MUST NOT send any PDUs on this connection following this
- request until it receives a Start TLS extended response.
+ - the OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to the requestName,
-4.13.2. Start TLS Response
-
- When a Start TLS request is made, servers supporting the operation
- MUST return a Start TLS response PDU to the requestor. The Start TLS
- response responseName is also "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037", and the
- response field is absent.
+ - the OBJECT IDENTIFIER (if any) assigned to the responseName (note
+ that the same OBJECT IDENTIFIER my be used for both the
+ requestName and responseName),
- The server MUST set the resultCode field to either success or one of
- the other values outlined in section 4.13.2.2.
+ - the format of the contents of the requestValue and responseValue
+ (if any), and
-4.13.2.1. "Success" Response
+ - the semantics of the operation.
- If the Start TLS Response contains a resultCode of success, this
- indicates that the server is willing and able to negotiate TLS. Refer
- to section 5.3 of [AuthMeth] for details.
-
-4.13.2.2. Response other than "success"
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 29 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- If the ExtendedResponse contains a resultCode other than success,
- this indicates that the server is unwilling or unable to negotiate
- TLS.
+4.13. IntermediateResponse Message
+
+ While the Search operation provides a mechanism to return multiple
+ response messages for a single Search request, other operations, by
+ nature, do not provide for multiple response messages.
- If the Start TLS extended request was not successful, the resultCode
- will be one of:
+ The IntermediateResponse message provides a general mechanism for
+ defining single-request/multiple-response operations in LDAP. This
+ message is intended to be used in conjunction with the Extended
+ operation to define new single-request/multiple-response operations
+ or in conjunction with a control when extending existing LDAP
+ operations in a way that requires them to return Intermediate
+ response information.
- operationsError (operations sequencing incorrect; e.g. TLS already
- established)
+ It is intended that the definitions and descriptions of Extended
+ operations and controls that make use of the IntermediateResponse
+ message will define the circumstances when an IntermediateResponse
+ message can be sent by a server and the associated meaning of an
+ IntermediateResponse message sent in a particular circumstance.
- protocolError (TLS not supported or incorrect PDU structure)
+ IntermediateResponse ::= [APPLICATION 25] SEQUENCE {
+ responseName [0] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
+ responseValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
- referral (this server doesn't do TLS, try this one)
+ IntermediateResponse messages SHALL NOT be returned to the client
+ unless the client issues a request that specifically solicits their
+ return. This document defines two forms of solicitation: Extended
+ operation and request control. IntermediateResponse messages are
+ specified in documents describing the manner in which they are
+ solicited (i.e. in the Extended operation or request control
+ specification that uses them). These specifications include:
+
+ - the OBJECT IDENTIFIER (if any) assigned to the responseName,
- unavailable (e.g. some major problem with TLS, or server is
- shutting down)
+ - the format of the contents of the responseValue (if any), and
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 36
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
- The server MUST return operationsError if the client violates any of
- the Start TLS extended operation sequencing requirements described in
- section 5.3 of [AuthMeth].
+ - the semantics associated with the IntermediateResponse message.
- If the server does not support TLS (whether by design or by current
- configuration), it MUST set the resultCode to protocolError, or to
- referral. The server MUST include an actual referral value in the
- LDAP Result if it returns a resultCode of referral. The client's
- current session is unaffected if the server does not support TLS. The
- client MAY proceed with any LDAP operation, or it MAY close the
- connection.
+ Extensions that allow the return of multiple types of
+ IntermediateResponse messages SHALL identify those types using unique
+ responseName values (note that one of these may specify no value).
- The server MUST return unavailable if it supports TLS but cannot
- establish a TLS connection for some reason, e.g. the certificate
- server not responding, it cannot contact its TLS implementation, or
- if the server is in process of shutting down. The client MAY retry
- the StartTLS operation, or it MAY proceed with any other LDAP
- operation, or it MAY close the connection.
+ Sections 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 describe additional requirements on the
+ inclusion of responseName and responseValue in IntermediateResponse
+ messages.
-4.13.3. Closing a TLS Connection
-
- Two forms of TLS connection closure--graceful and abrupt--are
- supported.
+
+4.13.1. Usage with LDAP ExtendedRequest and ExtendedResponse
+
+ A single-request/multiple-response operation may be defined using a
+ single ExtendedRequest message to solicit zero or more
+ IntermediateResponse messages of one or more kinds followed by an
+ ExtendedResponse message.
+
+
+4.13.2. Usage with LDAP Request Controls
+
+ A control's semantics may include the return of zero or more
+ IntermediateResponse messages prior to returning the final result
+ code for the operation. One or more kinds of IntermediateResponse
+ messages may be sent in response to a request control.
+
+ All IntermediateResponse messages associated with request controls
+ SHALL include a responseName. This requirement ensures that the
+ client can correctly identify the source of IntermediateResponse
+ messages when:
+
+ - two or more controls using IntermediateResponse messages are
+ included in a request for any LDAP operation or
+
+ - one or more controls using IntermediateResponse messages are
+ included in a request with an LDAP Extended operation that uses
+ IntermediateResponse messages.
-4.13.3.1. Graceful Closure
+
+4.14. StartTLS Operation
- Either the client or server MAY terminate the TLS connection and
- leave the LDAP session intact by sending a TLS closure alert.
+ The Start Transport Layer Security (StartTLS) operation's purpose is
+ to initiate installation of a TLS layer. The StartTLS operation is
+ defined using the Extended operation mechanism described in Section
+ 4.12.
- Before sending a TLS closure alert, the client MUST either wait for
- any outstanding LDAP operations to complete, or explicitly abandon
- them.
- After the initiator of a close has sent a TLS closure alert, it MUST
- discard any TLS messages until it has received a TLS closure alert
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 30 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 37
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- from the other party. It will cease to send TLS Record Protocol
- PDUs, and following the receipt of the alert, MAY send and receive
- LDAP PDUs.
+4.14.1. StartTLS Request
+
+ A client requests TLS establishment by transmitting a StartTLS
+ request PDU to the server. The StartTLS request is defined in terms
+ of an ExtendedRequest. The requestName is "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037",
+ and the requestValue field is always absent.
- The other party, if it receives a TLS closure alert, MUST immediately
- transmit a TLS closure alert. It will subsequently cease to send TLS
- Record Protocol PDUs, and MAY send and receive LDAP PDUs.
+ The client MUST NOT send any PDUs at this LDAP message layer
+ following this request until it receives a StartTLS Extended response
+ and, in the case of a successful response, completes TLS
+ negotiations.
-4.13.3.2. Abrupt Closure
-
- Either the client or server MAY abruptly close the TLS connection by
- dropping the underlying transfer protocol connection. In this
- circumstance, a server MAY send the client a Notice of Disconnection
- before dropping the underlying connection.
+ Detected sequencing problems (particularly those detailed in Section
+ 3.1.1 of [AuthMeth]) result in the resultCode being set to
+ operationsError.
+ If the server does not support TLS (whether by design or by current
+ configuration), it returns with the resultCode set to protocolError
+ as described in Section 4.12.
-5. Protocol Element Encodings and Transfer
- One underlying service is defined here. Clients and servers SHOULD
- implement the mapping of LDAP over TCP described in 5.2.1.
+4.14.2. StartTLS Response
+
+ When a StartTLS request is made, servers supporting the operation
+ MUST return a StartTLS response PDU to the requestor. The
+ responseName, if present, is also "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037". The
+ responseValue is absent.
+ If the server is willing and able to negotiate TLS, it returns with
+ the resultCode set to success. Refer to Section 4 of [AuthMeth] for
+ details.
+
+ If the server is otherwise unwilling or unable to perform this
+ operation, the server is to return an appropriate result code
+ indicating the nature of the problem. For example, if the TLS
+ subsystem is not presently available, the server may indicate so by
+ returning with the resultCode set to unavailable.
+
+
+4.14.3. Removal of the TLS Layer
+
+ Either the client or server MAY remove the TLS layer and leave the
+ LDAP message layer intact by sending and receiving a TLS closure
+ alert.
-5.1. Protocol Encoding
+ The initiating protocol peer sends the TLS closure alert. If it
+ wishes to leave the LDAP message layer intact, it then MUST cease to
+ send further PDUs and MUST ignore any received LDAP PDUs until it
+ receives a TLS closure alert from the other peer.
- The protocol elements of LDAP are encoded for exchange using the
- Basic Encoding Rules (BER) [X.690] of ASN.1 [X.680]. However, due to
- the high overhead involved in using certain elements of the BER, the
- following additional restrictions are placed on BER-encodings of LDAP
- protocol elements:
+ Once the initiating protocol peer receives a TLS closure alert from
+ the other peer it MAY send and receive LDAP PDUs.
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 38
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
- (1) Only the definite form of length encoding will be used.
+ When a protocol peer receives the initial TLS closure alert, it may
+ choose to allow the LDAP message layer to remain intact. In this
+ case, it MUST immediately transmit a TLS closure alert. Following
+ this, it MAY send and receive LDAP PDUs.
- (2) OCTET STRING values will be encoded in the primitive form only.
+ Protocol peers MAY terminate the LDAP session after sending or
+ receiving a TLS closure alert.
+
+ After the TLS layer has been removed, the server MUST NOT send
+ responses to any request message received before the TLS closure
+ alert. Thus, clients wishing to receive responses to messages sent
+ while the TLS layer is intact MUST wait for those message responses
+ before sending the TLS closure alert.
- (3) If the value of a BOOLEAN type is true, the encoding MUST have
- its contents octets set to hex "FF".
- (4) If a value of a type is its default value, it MUST be absent.
- Only some BOOLEAN and INTEGER types have default values in this
- protocol definition.
+5. Protocol Encoding, Connection, and Transfer
- These restrictions do not apply to ASN.1 types encapsulated inside of
- OCTET STRING values, such as attribute values, unless otherwise
- noted.
+ This protocol is designed to run over connection-oriented, reliable
+ transports, where the data stream is divided into octets (8-bit
+ units), with each octet and each bit being significant.
+ One underlying service, LDAP over TCP, is defined in Section
+ 5.2. This service is generally applicable to applications providing
+ or consuming X.500-based directory services on the Internet. This
+ specification was generally written with the TCP mapping in mind.
+ Specifications detailing other mappings may encounter various
+ obstacles.
-5.2. Transfer Protocols
+ Implementations of LDAP over TCP MUST implement the mapping as
+ described in Section 5.2.
- This protocol is designed to run over connection-oriented, reliable
- transports, with all 8 bits in an octet being significant in the data
- stream.
+ This table illustrates the relationship between the different layers
+ involved in an exchange between two protocol peers:
+ +----------------------+
+ | LDAP message layer |
+ +----------------------+ > LDAP PDUs
+ +----------------------+ < data
+ | SASL layer |
+ +----------------------+ > SASL-protected data
+ +----------------------+ < data
+ | TLS layer |
+ Application +----------------------+ > TLS-protected data
+ ------------+----------------------+ < data
+ Transport | transport connection |
+ +----------------------+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 31 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 39
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-5.2.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
+
+5.1. Protocol Encoding
+
+ The protocol elements of LDAP SHALL be encoded for exchange using the
+ Basic Encoding Rules [BER] of [ASN.1] with the following
+ restrictions:
- The encoded LDAPMessage PDUs are mapped directly onto the TCP
- bytestream using the BER-based encoding described in section 5.1. It
- is recommended that server implementations running over the TCP
- provide a protocol listener on the assigned port, 389. Servers may
- instead provide a listener on a different port number. Clients MUST
- support contacting servers on any valid TCP port.
+ - Only the definite form of length encoding is used.
+
+ - OCTET STRING values are encoded in the primitive form only.
+ - If the value of a BOOLEAN type is true, the encoding of the value
+ octet is set to hex "FF".
-6. Implementation Guidelines
+ - If a value of a type is its default value, it is absent. Only some
+ BOOLEAN and INTEGER types have default values in this protocol
+ definition.
+ These restrictions are meant to ease the overhead of encoding and
+ decoding certain elements in BER.
+
+ These restrictions do not apply to ASN.1 types encapsulated inside of
+ OCTET STRING values, such as attribute values, unless otherwise
+ stated.
-6.1. Server Implementations
+
+5.2. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
- The server MUST be capable of recognizing all the mandatory attribute
- type names and implement the syntaxes specified in [Syntaxes].
- Servers MAY also recognize additional attribute type names.
+ The encoded LDAPMessage PDUs are mapped directly onto the [TCP]
+ bytestream using the BER-based encoding described in Section 5.1. It
+ is recommended that server implementations running over the TCP
+ provide a protocol listener on the Internet Assigned Numbers
+ Authority (IANA)-assigned LDAP port, 389 [PortReg]. Servers may
+ instead provide a listener on a different port number. Clients MUST
+ support contacting servers on any valid TCP port.
-6.2. Client Implementations
+5.3. Termination of the LDAP session
- Clients that follow referrals or search continuation references MUST
- ensure that they do not loop between servers. They MUST NOT
- repeatedly contact the same server for the same request with the same
- target entry name, scope and filter. Some clients use a counter that
- is incremented each time referral handling occurs for an operation,
- and these kinds of clients MUST be able to handle a DIT with at least
- ten layers of naming contexts between the root and a leaf entry.
+ Termination of the LDAP session is typically initiated by the client
+ sending an UnbindRequst (Section 4.3), or by the server sending a
+ Notice of Disconnection (Section 4.4.1). In these cases each protocol
+ peer gracefully terminates the LDAP session by ceasing exchanges at
+ the LDAP message layer, tearing down any SASL layer, tearing down any
+ TLS layer, and closing the transport connection.
- In the absence of prior agreements with servers, clients SHOULD NOT
- assume that servers support any particular schemas beyond those
- referenced in section 6.1. Different schemas can have different
- attribute types with the same names. The client can retrieve the
- subschema entries referenced by the subschemaSubentry attribute in
- the entries held by the server.
+ A protocol peer may determine that the continuation of any
+ communication would be pernicious, and in this case may abruptly
+ terminate the session by ceasing communication and closing the
+ transport connection.
+ In either case, when the LDAP session is terminated, uncompleted
+ operations are handled as specified in Section 3.1.
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 40
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+
-7. Security Considerations
+6. Security Considerations
- When used with a connection-oriented transport, this version of the
- protocol provides facilities for simple authentication using a
- cleartext password, as well as any SASL mechanism [RFC2222]. SASL
- allows for integrity and privacy services to be negotiated.
+ This version of the protocol provides facilities for simple
+ authentication using a cleartext password, as well as any [SASL]
+ mechanism. Installing SASL and/or TLS layers can provide integrity
+ and other data security services.
It is also permitted that the server can return its credentials to
the client, if it chooses to do so.
underlying transport service cannot guarantee confidentiality and may
result in disclosure of the password to unauthorized parties.
- When used with SASL, it should be noted that the name field of the
- BindRequest is not protected against modification. Thus if the
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 32 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- distinguished name of the client (an LDAPDN) is agreed through the
- negotiation of the credentials, it takes precedence over any value in
- the unprotected name field.
+ Servers are encouraged to prevent directory modifications by clients
+ that have authenticated anonymously [AuthMeth].
+
+ Security considerations for authentication methods, SASL mechanisms,
+ and TLS are described in [AuthMeth].
+
+ It should be noted that SASL authentication exchanges do not provide
+ data confidentiality nor integrity protection for the version or name
+ fields of the BindRequest nor the resultCode, diagnosticMessage, or
+ referral fields of the BindResponse nor of any information contained
+ in controls attached to Bind requests or responses. Thus information
+ contained in these fields SHOULD NOT be relied on unless otherwise
+ protected (such as by establishing protections at the transport
+ layer).
+
+ Server implementors should plan for the possibility of (protocol or
+ external) events which alter the information used to establish
+ security factors (e.g., credentials, authorization identities, access
+ controls) during the course of the LDAP session, and even during the
+ performance of a particular operation, and should take steps to avoid
+ insecure side effects of these changes. The ways in which these
+ issues are addressed are application and/or implementation specific.
Implementations which cache attributes and entries obtained via LDAP
MUST ensure that access controls are maintained if that information
is to be provided to multiple clients, since servers may have access
control policies which prevent the return of entries or attributes in
- search results except to particular authenticated clients. For
+ Search results except to particular authenticated clients. For
example, caches could serve result information only to the client
whose request caused it to be in the cache.
- Protocol servers may return referrals which redirect protocol clients
- to peer servers. It is possible for a rogue application to inject
- such referrals into the data stream in an attempt to redirect a
- client to a rogue server. Protocol clients are advised to be aware of
- this, and possibly reject referrals when confidentiality measures are
- in place. Protocol clients are advised to ignore referrals from the
- Start TLS operation.
+ Servers may return referrals or Search result references which
+ redirect clients to peer servers. It is possible for a rogue
+ application to inject such referrals into the data stream in an
+ attempt to redirect a client to a rogue server. Clients are advised
+ to be aware of this, and possibly reject referrals when
+ confidentiality measures are not in place. Clients are advised to
+ reject referrals from the StartTLS operation.
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 41
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ The matchedDN and diagnosticMessage fields, as well as some
+ resultCode values (e.g., attributeOrValueExists and
+ entryAlreadyExists), could disclose the presence or absence of
+ specific data in the directory which is subject to access and other
+ administrative controls. Server implementations should restrict
+ access to protected information equally under both normal and error
+ conditions.
-8. Acknowledgements
+ Protocol peers MUST be prepared to handle invalid and arbitrary
+ length protocol encodings. Invalid protocol encodings include: BER
+ encoding exceptions, format string and UTF-8 encoding exceptions,
+ overflow exceptions, integer value exceptions, and binary mode on/off
+ flag exceptions. The LDAPv3 PROTOS [PROTOS-LDAP] test suite provides
+ excellent examples of these exceptions and test cases used to
+ discover flaws.
- This document is an update to RFC 2251, by Mark Wahl, Tim Howes, and
- Steve Kille. Their work along with the input of individuals of the
- IETF LDAPEXT, LDUP, LDAPBIS, and other Working Groups is gratefully
- acknowledged.
+ In the event that a protocol peer senses an attack which in its
+ nature could cause damage due to further communication at any layer
+ in the LDAP session, the protocol peer should abruptly terminate the
+ LDAP session as described in Section 5.3.
-9. Normative References
-
- [X.500] ITU-T Rec. X.500, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts,
- Models and Service", 1993.
+7. Acknowledgements
- [Roadmap] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: Technical Specification Road
- Map", draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt (a work in
- progress).
+ This document is based on RFC 2251 by Mark Wahl, Tim Howes, and Steve
+ Kille. RFC 2251 was a product of the IETF ASID Working Group.
- [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
- Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
-
- [X.680] ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:1998
- Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One
- (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation
+ It is also based on RFC 2830 by Jeff Hodges, RL "Bob" Morgan, and
+ Mark Wahl. RFC 2830 was a product of the IETF LDAPEXT Working Group.
- [X.690] ITU-T Rec. X.690, "Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules:
- Basic, Canonical, and Distinguished Encoding Rules", 1994.
+ It is also based on RFC 3771 by Roger Harrison, and Kurt Zeilenga.
+ RFC 3771 was an individual submission to the IETF.
- [LDAPIANA] K. Zeilenga, "IANA Considerations for LDAP", draft-ietf-
- ldapbis-xx.txt (a work in progress).
+ This document is a product of the IETF LDAPBIS Working Group.
+ Significant contributors of technical review and content include Kurt
+ Zeilenga, Steven Legg, and Hallvard Furuseth.
- [ISO10646] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -
- Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1
- : 1993.
+
+8. Normative References
+
+ [ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
+ Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
+
+ [ASN.1] ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (07/2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002
+ "Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One
+ (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation"
+
+ [AuthMeth] Harrison, R., "LDAP: Authentication Methods and Connection
+ Level Security Mechanisms", draft-ietf-ldapbis-authmeth-
+ xx.txt, (a work in progress).
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 33 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 42
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+ [BER] ITU-T Rec. X.690 (07/2002) | ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002,
+ "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
+ Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
+ Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
+ (DER)", 2002.
+
+ [IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD5 and RFC 791,
+ September 1981
- [RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode
- and ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
-
- [Models] K. Zeilenga, "LDAP: The Models", draft-ietf-ldapbis-
- models-xx.txt (a work in progress).
-
- [LDAPDN] K. Zeilenga (editor), "LDAP: String Representation of
+ [ISO10646] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -
+ Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1
+ : 1993.
+
+ [Keyword] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [LDAPDN] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: String Representation of
Distinguished Names", draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-xx.txt, (a
work in progress).
- [Syntaxes] K. Dally (editor), "LDAP: Syntaxes", draft-ietf-ldapbis-
- syntaxes-xx.txt, (a work in progress).
+ [LDAPIANA] Zeilenga, K., "IANA Considerations for LDAP", draft-ietf-
+ ldapbis-bcp64-xx.txt, (a work in progress).
- [X.501] ITU-T Rec. X.501, "The Directory: Models", 1993.
+ [LDAPURL] Smith, M., "LDAP: Uniform Resource Locator", draft-ietf-
+ ldapbis-url-xx.txt, (a work in progress).
- [X.511] ITU-T Rec. X.511, "The Directory: Abstract Service
- Definition", 1993.
+ [Models] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Directory Information Models", draft-
+ ietf-ldapbis-models-xx.txt (a work in progress).
- [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter Uniform
- Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396,
- August 1998.
+ [Roadmap] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Technical Specification Road Map",
+ draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt (a work in progress).
- [AuthMeth] R. Harrison (editor), "LDAP: Authentication Methods",
- draft-ietf-ldapbis-authmeth-xx.txt, (a work in progress).
+ [SASL] Melnikov, A., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer",
+ draft-ietf-sasl-rfc2222bis-xx.txt (a work in progress).
- [RFC2222] Meyers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer",
- RFC 2222, October 1997.
-
-
-10. Editor's Address
+ [SASLPrep] Zeilenga, K., "Stringprep profile for user names and
+ passwords", draft-ietf-sasl-saslprep-xx.txt, (a work in
+ progress).
+
+ [StringPrep] Hoffman P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
+ Internationalized Strings ('stringprep')", draft-hoffman-
+ rfc3454bis-xx.txt, a work in progress.
+
+ [Syntaxes] Legg, S., and K. Dally, "LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching
+ Rules", draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-xx.txt, (a work in
+ progress).
+
+ [TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD7 and RFC
+ 793, September 1981
+
+ [TLS] Dierks, T. and C. Allen. "The TLS Protocol Version 1.1",
+ draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-xx.txt, a work in progress.
- Jim Sermersheim
- Novell, Inc.
- 1800 South Novell Place
- Provo, Utah 84606, USA
- jimse@novell.com
- +1 801 861-3088
-
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 43
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ [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/).
+
+ [URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
+ Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396,
+ August 1998.
+
+ [UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+ 10646", STD63 and RFC3629, November 2003.
+
+ [X.500] ITU-T Rec. X.500, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts,
+ Models and Service", 1993.
+
+ [X.501] ITU-T Rec. X.501, "The Directory: Models", 1993.
+
+ [X.511] ITU-T Rec. X.511, "The Directory: Abstract Service
+ Definition", 1993.
+
+
+9. Informative References
+
+ [Glossary] The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Glossary",
+ <http://www.unicode.org/glossary/>.
+
+ [CharModel] Whistler, K. and M. Davis, "Unicode Technical Report
+ #17, Character Encoding Model", UTR17,
+ <http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr17/>, August
+ 2000.
+
+ [PROTOS-LDAP] University of Oulu, "PROTOS Test-Suite: c06-ldapv3"
+ <http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/protos/testing/c06/l
+ dapv3/>
+
+ [PortReg] IANA, "Port Numbers",
+ http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
+
+
+10. IANA Considerations
+
+ It is requested that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
+ update the LDAP result code registry to indicate that this document
+ provides the definitive technical specification for result codes 0-
+ 36, 48-54, 64-70, 80-90.
+
+ It is requested that the IANA update the LDAP Protocol Mechanism
+ registry to indicate that this document and [AuthMeth] provides the
+ definitive technical specification for the StartTLS
+ (1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037) Extended operation.
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 44
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ It is requested that the IANA update the occurrence of "RFC XXXX" in
+ Appendix B with this RFC number at publication.
+
+
+11. Editor's Address
+
+ Jim Sermersheim
+ Novell, Inc.
+ 1800 South Novell Place
+ Provo, Utah 84606, USA
+ jimse@novell.com
+ +1 801 861-3088
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 34 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 45
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
Appendix A - LDAP Result Codes
This normative appendix details additional considerations regarding
LDAP result codes and provides a brief, general description of each
- LDAP result code enumerated in Section 4.1.10.
+ LDAP result code enumerated in Section 4.1.9.
+
+ Additional result codes MAY be defined for use with extensions
+ [LDAPIANA]. Client implementations SHALL treat any result code which
+ they do not recognize as an unknown error condition.
+
+ Servers may substitute some result codes due to access controls which
+ prevent their disclosure.
- Additional result codes MAY be defined for use with extensions.
- Client implementations SHALL treat any result code which they do not
- recognize as an unknown error condition.
A.1 Non-Error Result Codes
+
These result codes (called "non-error" result codes) do not indicate
an error condition:
- success(0),
- compareTrue(6),
- compareFalse(7),
- referral(10), and
- saslBindInProgress(14).
-
- The success(0), compareTrue(6), and compare(7) result codes indicate
- successful completion (and, hence, are called to as "successful"
+ success (0),
+ compareFalse (5),
+ compareTrue (6),
+ referral (10), and
+ saslBindInProgress (14).
+
+ The success, compareTrue, and compareFalse result codes indicate
+ successful completion (and, hence, are referred to as "successful"
result codes).
- The referral(10) and saslBindInProgress(14) indicate the client is
- required to take additional action to complete the operation
+ The referral and saslBindInProgress result codes indicate the client
+ needs to take additional action to complete the operation.
-A.2 Error Result Codes
-
-A.3 Classes and Precedence of Error Result Codes
-
- Result codes that indicate error conditions (and, hence, are called
- "error" result codes) fall into 6 classes. The following list
- specifies the precedence of error classes to be used when more than
- one error is detected [X511]:
- 1) Name Errors (codes 32 - 34, 36)
- - a problem related to a name (DN or RDN),
- 2) Update Errors (codes 64 - 69, 71)
- - a problem related to an update operation,
- 3) Attribute Errors (codes 16 - 21)
- - a problem related to a supplied attribute,
- 4) Security Errors (codes 8, 13, 48 - 50)
- - a security related problem,
- 5) Service Problem (codes 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 51 - 54, 80)
- - a problem related to the provision of the service, and
- 6) Protocol Problem (codes 1, 2)
- - a problem related to protocol structure or semantics.
-
- If the server detects multiple errors simultaneously, the server
- SHOULD report the error with the highest precedence.
+A.2 Result Codes
Existing LDAP result codes are described as follows:
success (0)
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 35 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
-
- Indicates successful completion of an operation.
-
- This result code is normally not returned by the compare
- operation, see compareFalse (5) and compareTrue (6). It is
- possible that a future extension mechanism would allow this
- to be returned by a compare operation.
-
+ Indicates the successful completion of an operation. Note:
+ this code is not used with the Compare operation. See
+ compareFalse (5) and compareTrue (6).
operationsError (1)
-
Indicates that the operation is not properly sequenced with
relation to other operations (of same or different type).
For example, this code is returned if the client attempts to
- Start TLS [RFC2246] while there are other operations
- outstanding or if TLS was already established.
-
-
+ StartTLS [TLS] while there are other uncompleted operations
+ or if a TLS layer was already installed.
protocolError (2)
-
- Indicates the server received data which has incorrect
- structure.
+ Indicates the server received data which is not well-formed.
+
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 46
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+ For Bind operation only, this code is also used to indicate
+ that the server does not support the requested protocol
+ version.
- For bind operation only, the code may be resulted to indicate
- the server does not support the requested protocol version.
+ For Extended operations only, this code is also used to
+ indicate that the server does not support (by design or
+ configuration) the Extended operation associated with the
+ requestName.
+
+ For request operations specifying multiple controls, this may
+ be used to indicate that the server cannot ignore the order
+ of the controls as specified, or that the combination of the
+ specified controls is invalid or unspecified.
-
timeLimitExceeded (3)
-
Indicates that the time limit specified by the client was
exceeded before the operation could be completed.
-
-
+
sizeLimitExceeded (4)
-
Indicates that the size limit specified by the client was
exceeded before the operation could be completed.
-
compareFalse (5)
-
- Indicates that the operation successfully completes and the
- assertion has evaluated to FALSE.
-
- This result code is normally only returned by the compare
- operation.
-
+ Indicates that the Compare operation has successfully
+ completed and the assertion has evaluated to FALSE or
+ Undefined.
compareTrue (6)
-
- Indicates that the operation successfully completes and the
- assertion has evaluated to TRUE.
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 36 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
-
- This result code is normally only returned by the compare
- operation.
-
+ Indicates that the Compare operation has successfully
+ completed and the assertion has evaluated to TRUE.
authMethodNotSupported (7)
-
Indicates that the authentication method or mechanism is not
supported.
-
- strongAuthRequired (8)
-
- Except when returned in a Notice of Disconnect (see section
- 4.4.1), this indicates that the server requires the client to
- authentication using a strong(er) mechanism.
-
+ strongerAuthRequired (8)
+ Indicates the server requires strong(er) authentication in
+ order to complete the operation.
+
+ When used with the Notice of Disconnection operation, this
+ code indicates that the server has detected that an
+ established security association between the client and
+ server has unexpectedly failed or been compromised.
referral (10)
-
Indicates that a referral needs to be chased to complete the
- operation (see section 4.1.11).
-
+ operation (see Section 4.1.10).
adminLimitExceeded (11)
-
Indicates that an administrative limit has been exceeded.
-
unavailableCriticalExtension (12)
-
- Indicates that server cannot perform a critical extension
- (see section 4.1.12).
-
+ Indicates a critical control is unrecognized (see Section
+ 4.1.11).
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 47
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
confidentialityRequired (13)
-
Indicates that data confidentiality protections are required.
-
saslBindInProgress (14)
-
Indicates the server requires the client to send a new bind
request, with the same SASL mechanism, to continue the
- authentication process (see section 4.2).
-
+ authentication process (see Section 4.2).
noSuchAttribute (16)
-
Indicates that the named entry does not contain the specified
attribute or attribute value.
-
undefinedAttributeType (17)
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 37 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
-
- Indicates that a request field contains an undefined
- attribute type.
-
+ Indicates that a request field contains an unrecognized
+ attribute description.
inappropriateMatching (18)
-
- Indicates that a request cannot be completed due to an
- inappropriate matching.
-
+ Indicates that an attempt was made (e.g. in an assertion) to
+ use a matching rule not defined for the attribute type
+ concerned.
constraintViolation (19)
-
Indicates that the client supplied an attribute value which
- does not conform to constraints placed upon it by the data
- model.
-
- For example, this code is returned when the multiple values
- are supplied to an attribute which has a SINGLE-VALUE
- constraint.
+ does not conform to the constraints placed upon it by the
+ data model.
+ For example, this code is returned when multiple values are
+ supplied to an attribute which has a SINGLE-VALUE constraint.
attributeOrValueExists (20)
-
Indicates that the client supplied an attribute or value to
- be added to an entry already exists.
-
+ be added to an entry, but the attribute or value already
+ exists.
invalidAttributeSyntax (21)
-
Indicates that a purported attribute value does not conform
to the syntax of the attribute.
-
noSuchObject (32)
-
Indicates that the object does not exist in the DIT.
-
aliasProblem (33)
-
- Indicates that an alias problem has occurred. Typically an
- alias has been dereferenced which names no object.
-
+ Indicates that an alias problem has occurred. For example,
+ the code may used to indicate an alias has been dereferenced
+ which names no object.
invalidDNSyntax (34)
-
- Indicates that a LDAPDN or RelativeLDAPDN field (e.g. search
+ Indicates that an LDAPDN or RelativeLDAPDN field (e.g. search
base, target entry, ModifyDN newrdn, etc.) of a request does
not conform to the required syntax or contains attribute
values which do not conform to the syntax of the attribute's
type.
-
-
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 38 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 48
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- aliasDereferencingProblem (36)
+ aliasDereferencingProblem (36)
Indicates that a problem occurred while dereferencing an
alias. Typically an alias was encountered in a situation
where it was not allowed or where access was denied.
-
inappropriateAuthentication (48)
-
Indicates the server requires the client which had attempted
to bind anonymously or without supplying credentials to
- provide some form of credentials,
-
+ provide some form of credentials.
invalidCredentials (49)
-
- Indicates the supplied password or SASL credentials are
- invalid.
-
+ Indicates that the provided credentials (e.g. the user's name
+ and password) are invalid.
insufficientAccessRights (50)
-
Indicates that the client does not have sufficient access
rights to perform the operation.
-
busy (51)
-
- Indicates that the server is busy.
-
+ Indicates that the server is too busy to service the
+ operation.
unavailable (52)
-
Indicates that the server is shutting down or a subsystem
necessary to complete the operation is offline.
-
unwillingToPerform (53)
-
Indicates that the server is unwilling to perform the
operation.
-
loopDetect (54)
-
- Indicates that the server has detected an internal loop.
-
+ Indicates that the server has detected an internal loop (e.g.
+ while dereferencing aliases or chaining an operation).
namingViolation (64)
-
- Indicates that the entry name violates naming restrictions.
+ Indicates that the entry's name violates naming restrictions.
objectClassViolation (65)
-
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 39 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
Indicates that the entry violates object class restrictions.
-
notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66)
-
- Indicates that operation is inappropriately acting upon a
+ Indicates that the operation is inappropriately acting upon a
non-leaf entry.
-
notAllowedOnRDN (67)
-
Indicates that the operation is inappropriately attempting to
remove a value which forms the entry's relative distinguished
name.
-
entryAlreadyExists (68)
-
- Indicates that the request cannot be added fulfilled as the
- entry already exists.
-
+ Indicates that the request cannot be fulfilled (added, moved,
+ or renamed) as the target entry already exists.
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 49
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
objectClassModsProhibited (69)
+ Indicates that an attempt to modify the object class(es) of
+ an entry's 'objectClass' attribute is prohibited.
- Indicates that the attempt to modify the object class(es) of
- an entry objectClass attribute is prohibited.
-
- For example, this code is returned when a when a client
- attempts to modify the structural object class of an entry.
-
+ For example, this code is returned when a client attempts to
+ modify the structural object class of an entry.
affectsMultipleDSAs (71)
-
- Indicates that the operation cannot be completed as it
- affects multiple servers (DSAs).
-
+ Indicates that the operation cannot be performed as it would
+ affect multiple servers (DSAs).
other (80)
-
Indicates the server has encountered an internal error.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 40 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 50
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- Appendix B - Complete ASN.1 Definition
+Appendix B - Complete ASN.1 Definition
This appendix is normative.
- Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol-V3 DEFINITIONS
+ Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol-V3
+ -- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This version of
+ -- this ASN.1 module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC itself
+ -- for full legal notices.
+ DEFINITIONS
IMPLICIT TAGS
EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED ::=
BEGIN
LDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
- messageID MessageID,
- protocolOp CHOICE {
- bindRequest BindRequest,
- bindResponse BindResponse,
- unbindRequest UnbindRequest,
- searchRequest SearchRequest,
- searchResEntry SearchResultEntry,
- searchResDone SearchResultDone,
- searchResRef SearchResultReference,
- modifyRequest ModifyRequest,
- modifyResponse ModifyResponse,
- addRequest AddRequest,
- addResponse AddResponse,
- delRequest DelRequest,
- delResponse DelResponse,
- modDNRequest ModifyDNRequest,
- modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse,
- compareRequest CompareRequest,
- compareResponse CompareResponse,
- abandonRequest AbandonRequest,
- extendedReq ExtendedRequest,
- extendedResp ExtendedResponse,
- ... },
- controls [0] Controls OPTIONAL }
+ messageID MessageID,
+ protocolOp CHOICE {
+ bindRequest BindRequest,
+ bindResponse BindResponse,
+ unbindRequest UnbindRequest,
+ searchRequest SearchRequest,
+ searchResEntry SearchResultEntry,
+ searchResDone SearchResultDone,
+ searchResRef SearchResultReference,
+ modifyRequest ModifyRequest,
+ modifyResponse ModifyResponse,
+ addRequest AddRequest,
+ addResponse AddResponse,
+ delRequest DelRequest,
+ delResponse DelResponse,
+ modDNRequest ModifyDNRequest,
+ modDNResponse ModifyDNResponse,
+ compareRequest CompareRequest,
+ compareResponse CompareResponse,
+ abandonRequest AbandonRequest,
+ extendedReq ExtendedRequest,
+ extendedResp ExtendedResponse,
+ ...,
+ intermediateResponse IntermediateResponse },
+ controls [0] Controls OPTIONAL }
MessageID ::= INTEGER (0 .. maxInt)
LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded,
-- [ISO10646] characters
- LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to numericoid [Models]
-
- LDAPDN ::= LDAPString
-
- RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString
+ LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to <numericoid> [Models]
- AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString
- -- Constrained to attributedescription
- -- [Models]
+ LDAPDN ::= LDAPString -- Constrained to <distinguishedName>
+ -- [LDAPDN]
- AttributeDescriptionList ::= SEQUENCE OF
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 41 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 51
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- AttributeDescription
+ RelativeLDAPDN ::= LDAPString -- Constrained to <name-component>
+ -- [LDAPDN]
+
+ AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString
+ -- Constrained to <attributedescription>
+ -- [Models]
AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING
AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
- attributeDesc AttributeDescription,
- assertionValue AssertionValue }
+ attributeDesc AttributeDescription,
+ assertionValue AssertionValue }
AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING
- Attribute ::= SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- vals SET OF AttributeValue }
+ PartialAttribute ::= SEQUENCE {
+ type AttributeDescription,
+ vals SET OF value AttributeValue }
+
+ Attribute ::= PartialAttribute(WITH COMPONENTS {
+ ...,
+ vals (SIZE(1..MAX))})
MatchingRuleId ::= LDAPString
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 52
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
LDAPResult ::= SEQUENCE {
- resultCode ENUMERATED {
- success (0),
- operationsError (1),
- protocolError (2),
- timeLimitExceeded (3),
- sizeLimitExceeded (4),
- compareFalse (5),
- compareTrue (6),
- authMethodNotSupported (7),
- strongAuthRequired (8),
- -- 9 reserved --
- referral (10),
- adminLimitExceeded (11),
- unavailableCriticalExtension (12),
- confidentialityRequired (13),
- saslBindInProgress (14),
- noSuchAttribute (16),
- undefinedAttributeType (17),
- inappropriateMatching (18),
- constraintViolation (19),
- attributeOrValueExists (20),
- invalidAttributeSyntax (21),
- -- 22-31 unused --
- noSuchObject (32),
- aliasProblem (33),
- invalidDNSyntax (34),
- -- 35 reserved for undefined isLeaf --
- aliasDereferencingProblem (36),
- -- 37-47 unused --
- inappropriateAuthentication (48),
- invalidCredentials (49),
- insufficientAccessRights (50),
- busy (51),
- unavailable (52),
- unwillingToPerform (53),
- loopDetect (54),
- -- 55-63 unused --
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 42 \f
+ resultCode ENUMERATED {
+ success (0),
+ operationsError (1),
+ protocolError (2),
+ timeLimitExceeded (3),
+ sizeLimitExceeded (4),
+ compareFalse (5),
+ compareTrue (6),
+ authMethodNotSupported (7),
+ strongerAuthRequired (8),
+ -- 9 reserved --
+ referral (10),
+ adminLimitExceeded (11),
+ unavailableCriticalExtension (12),
+ confidentialityRequired (13),
+ saslBindInProgress (14),
+ noSuchAttribute (16),
+ undefinedAttributeType (17),
+ inappropriateMatching (18),
+ constraintViolation (19),
+ attributeOrValueExists (20),
+ invalidAttributeSyntax (21),
+ -- 22-31 unused --
+ noSuchObject (32),
+ aliasProblem (33),
+ invalidDNSyntax (34),
+ -- 35 reserved for undefined isLeaf --
+ aliasDereferencingProblem (36),
+ -- 37-47 unused --
+ inappropriateAuthentication (48),
+ invalidCredentials (49),
+ insufficientAccessRights (50),
+ busy (51),
+ unavailable (52),
+ unwillingToPerform (53),
+ loopDetect (54),
+ -- 55-63 unused --
+ namingViolation (64),
+ objectClassViolation (65),
+ notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66),
+ notAllowedOnRDN (67),
+ entryAlreadyExists (68),
+ objectClassModsProhibited (69),
+ -- 70 reserved for CLDAP --
+ affectsMultipleDSAs (71),
+ -- 72-79 unused --
+ other (80),
+ ... },
+ matchedDN LDAPDN,
+ diagnosticMessage LDAPString,
+ referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL }
+
+ Referral ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF uri URI
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 53
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- namingViolation (64),
- objectClassViolation (65),
- notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66),
- notAllowedOnRDN (67),
- entryAlreadyExists (68),
- objectClassModsProhibited (69),
- -- 70 reserved for CLDAP --
- affectsMultipleDSAs (71),
- -- 72-79 unused --
- other (80),
- ... },
- -- 81-90 reserved for APIs --
- matchedDN LDAPDN,
- diagnosticMessage LDAPString,
- referral [3] Referral OPTIONAL }
-
- Referral ::= SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL
-
- LDAPURL ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in
- -- URLs
-
- Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF Control
+
+ URI ::= LDAPString -- limited to characters permitted in
+ -- URIs
+
+ Controls ::= SEQUENCE OF control Control
Control ::= SEQUENCE {
- controlType LDAPOID,
- criticality BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
- controlValue OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+ controlType LDAPOID,
+ criticality BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
+ controlValue OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
BindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 0] SEQUENCE {
- version INTEGER (1 .. 127),
- name LDAPDN,
- authentication AuthenticationChoice }
+ version INTEGER (1 .. 127),
+ name LDAPDN,
+ authentication AuthenticationChoice }
AuthenticationChoice ::= CHOICE {
- simple [0] OCTET STRING,
- -- 1 and 2 reserved
- sasl [3] SaslCredentials,
- ... }
+ simple [0] OCTET STRING,
+ -- 1 and 2 reserved
+ sasl [3] SaslCredentials,
+ ... }
SaslCredentials ::= SEQUENCE {
- mechanism LDAPString,
- credentials OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+ mechanism LDAPString,
+ credentials OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
BindResponse ::= [APPLICATION 1] SEQUENCE {
COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
UnbindRequest ::= [APPLICATION 2] NULL
SearchRequest ::= [APPLICATION 3] SEQUENCE {
- baseObject LDAPDN,
- scope ENUMERATED {
- baseObject (0),
- singleLevel (1),
+ baseObject LDAPDN,
+ scope ENUMERATED {
+ baseObject (0),
+ singleLevel (1),
+ wholeSubtree (2),
+ ... },
+ derefAliases ENUMERATED {
+ neverDerefAliases (0),
+ derefInSearching (1),
+ derefFindingBaseObj (2),
+ derefAlways (3) },
+ sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
+ timeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
+ typesOnly BOOLEAN,
+ filter Filter,
+ attributes AttributeSelection }
+
+ AttributeSelection ::= SEQUENCE OF selector LDAPString
+ -- The LDAPString is constrained to
+ -- <attributeSelector> in Section 4.5.1.7
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 43 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 54
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- wholeSubtree (2) },
- derefAliases ENUMERATED {
- neverDerefAliases (0),
- derefInSearching (1),
- derefFindingBaseObj (2),
- derefAlways (3) },
- sizeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
- timeLimit INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
- typesOnly BOOLEAN,
- filter Filter,
- attributes AttributeDescriptionList }
-
Filter ::= CHOICE {
- and [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter,
- or [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Filter,
- not [2] Filter,
- equalityMatch [3] AttributeValueAssertion,
- substrings [4] SubstringFilter,
- greaterOrEqual [5] AttributeValueAssertion,
- lessOrEqual [6] AttributeValueAssertion,
- present [7] AttributeDescription,
- approxMatch [8] AttributeValueAssertion,
- extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion }
+ and [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF filter Filter,
+ or [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF filter Filter,
+ not [2] Filter,
+ equalityMatch [3] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ substrings [4] SubstringFilter,
+ greaterOrEqual [5] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ lessOrEqual [6] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ present [7] AttributeDescription,
+ approxMatch [8] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion,
+ ... }
SubstringFilter ::= SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- -- at least one must be present,
- -- initial and final can occur at most once
- substrings SEQUENCE OF CHOICE {
- initial [0] AssertionValue,
- any [1] AssertionValue,
- final [2] AssertionValue } }
+ type AttributeDescription,
+ substrings SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF substring CHOICE {
+ initial [0] AssertionValue, -- can occur at most once
+ any [1] AssertionValue,
+ final [2] AssertionValue } -- can occur at most once
+ }
MatchingRuleAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
- matchingRule [1] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL,
- type [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,
- matchValue [3] AssertionValue,
- dnAttributes [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }
+ matchingRule [1] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL,
+ type [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,
+ matchValue [3] AssertionValue,
+ dnAttributes [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }
SearchResultEntry ::= [APPLICATION 4] SEQUENCE {
- objectName LDAPDN,
- attributes PartialAttributeList }
+ objectName LDAPDN,
+ attributes PartialAttributeList }
- PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- vals SET OF AttributeValue }
+ PartialAttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF
+ partialAttribute PartialAttribute
- SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE OF LDAPURL
+ SearchResultReference ::= [APPLICATION 19] SEQUENCE
+ SIZE (1..MAX) OF uri URI
SearchResultDone ::= [APPLICATION 5] LDAPResult
ModifyRequest ::= [APPLICATION 6] SEQUENCE {
- object LDAPDN,
- modification SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 44 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- operation ENUMERATED {
- add (0),
- delete (1),
- replace (2) },
- modification AttributeTypeAndValues } }
-
- AttributeTypeAndValues ::= SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- vals SET OF AttributeValue }
+ object LDAPDN,
+ changes SEQUENCE OF change SEQUENCE {
+ operation ENUMERATED {
+ add (0),
+ delete (1),
+ replace (2),
+ ... },
+ modification PartialAttribute } }
ModifyResponse ::= [APPLICATION 7] LDAPResult
AddRequest ::= [APPLICATION 8] SEQUENCE {
- entry LDAPDN,
- attributes AttributeList }
+ entry LDAPDN,
+ attributes AttributeList }
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 55
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
- AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
- type AttributeDescription,
- vals SET OF AttributeValue }
+ AttributeList ::= SEQUENCE OF attribute Attribute
AddResponse ::= [APPLICATION 9] LDAPResult
DelResponse ::= [APPLICATION 11] LDAPResult
ModifyDNRequest ::= [APPLICATION 12] SEQUENCE {
- entry LDAPDN,
- newrdn RelativeLDAPDN,
- deleteoldrdn BOOLEAN,
- newSuperior [0] LDAPDN OPTIONAL }
+ entry LDAPDN,
+ newrdn RelativeLDAPDN,
+ deleteoldrdn BOOLEAN,
+ newSuperior [0] LDAPDN OPTIONAL }
ModifyDNResponse ::= [APPLICATION 13] LDAPResult
CompareRequest ::= [APPLICATION 14] SEQUENCE {
- entry LDAPDN,
- ava AttributeValueAssertion }
+ entry LDAPDN,
+ ava AttributeValueAssertion }
CompareResponse ::= [APPLICATION 15] LDAPResult
AbandonRequest ::= [APPLICATION 16] MessageID
ExtendedRequest ::= [APPLICATION 23] SEQUENCE {
- requestName [0] LDAPOID,
- requestValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+ requestName [0] LDAPOID,
+ requestValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
ExtendedResponse ::= [APPLICATION 24] SEQUENCE {
- COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
- responseName [10] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
- response [11] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+ COMPONENTS OF LDAPResult,
+ responseName [10] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
+ responseValue [11] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
+
+ IntermediateResponse ::= [APPLICATION 25] SEQUENCE {
+ responseName [0] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
+ responseValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
END
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 45 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 56
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-Appendix C - Change History
- <Note to RFC editor: This section is to be removed prior to RFC
- publication>
-
-C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:
+Appendix C - Changes
-C.1.1 Editorial
-
- - Bibliography References: Changed all bibliography references to
- use a long name form for readability.
- - Changed occurrences of "unsupportedCriticalExtension"
- "unavailableCriticalExtension"
- - Fixed a small number of misspellings (mostly dropped letters).
+ This appendix is non-normative.
-C.1.2 Section 1
+ This appendix summarizes substantive changes made to RFC 2251, RFC
+ 2830, and RFC 3771.
- - Removed IESG note.
-C.1.3 Section 9
+C.1 Changes made to RFC 2251:
- - Added references to RFCs 1823, 2234, 2829 and 2830.
+ This section summarizes the substantive changes made to Sections 1,
+ 2, 3.1, and 4 through the remainder of RFC 2251. Readers should
+ consult [Models] and [AuthMeth] for summaries of changes to other
+ sections.
-
-C.2 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-00.txt:
-C.2.1 Section 4.1.6
+C.1.1 Section 1 (Status of this Memo)
- - In the first paragraph, clarified what the contents of an
- AttributeValue are. There was confusion regarding whether or not
- an AttributeValue that is BER encoded (due to the "binary" option)
- is to be wrapped in an extra OCTET STRING.
- - To the first paragraph, added wording that doesn't restrict other
- transfer encoding specifiers from being used. The previous wording
- only allowed for the string encoding and the ;binary encoding.
- - To the first paragraph, added a statement restricting multiple
- options that specify transfer encoding from being present. This
- was never specified in the previous version and was seen as a
- potential interoperability problem.
- - Added a third paragraph stating that the ;binary option is
- currently the only option defined that specifies the transfer
- encoding. This is for completeness.
+ - Removed IESG note. Post publication of RFC 2251, mandatory LDAP
+ authentication mechanisms have been standardized which are
+ sufficient to remove this note. See [AuthMeth] for authentication
+ mechanisms.
-C.2.2 Section 4.1.7
- - Generalized the second paragraph to read "If an option specifying
- the transfer encoding is present in attributeDesc, the
- AssertionValue is encoded as specified by the option...".
- Previously, only the ;binary option was mentioned.
+C.1.2 Section 3.1 (Protocol Model) and others
+
+ - Removed notes giving history between LDAP v1, v2 and v3. Instead,
+ added sufficient language so that this document can stand on its
+ own.
-C.2.3 Sections 4.2, 4.9, 4.10
- - Added alias dereferencing specifications. In the case of modDN,
- followed precedent set on other update operations (... alias is
- not dereferenced...) In the case of bind and compare stated that
+C.1.3 Section 4 (Elements of Protocol)
+
+ - Clarified where the extensibility features of ASN.1 apply to the
+ protocol. This change affected various ASN.1 types by the
+ inclusion of ellipses (...) to certain elements.
+ - Removed the requirement that servers which implement version 3 or
+ later MUST provide the 'supportedLDAPVersion' attribute. This
+ statement provided no interoperability advantages.
+
+
+C.1.4 Section 4.1.1 (Message Envelope)
+
+ - There was a mandatory requirement for the server to return a
+ Notice of Disconnection and drop the transport connection when a
+ PDU is malformed in a certain way. This has been updated such that
+ the server SHOULD return the Notice of Disconnection, and MUST
+ terminate the LDAP Session.
+
+
+C.1.5 Section 4.1.1.1 (Message ID)
+
+ - Required that the messageID of requests MUST be non-zero as the
+ zero is reserved for Notice of Disconnection.
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 46 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 57
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- servers SHOULD NOT dereference aliases. Specifications were added
- because they were missing from the previous version and caused
- interoperability problems. Concessions were made for bind and
- compare (neither should have ever allowed alias dereferencing) by
- using SHOULD NOT language, due to the behavior of some existing
- implementations.
-
-C.2.4 Sections 4.5 and Appendix A
-
- - Changed SubstringFilter.substrings.initial, any, and all from
- LDAPString to AssertionValue. This was causing an incompatibility
- with X.500 and confusion among other TS RFCs.
-
+ - Specified when it is and isn't appropriate to return an already
+ used message id. RFC 2251 accidentally imposed synchronous server
+ behavior in its wording of this.
-C.3 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-01.txt:
-C.3.1 Section 3.4
-
- - Reworded text surrounding subschemaSubentry to reflect that it is
- a single-valued attribute that holds the schema for the root DSE.
- Also noted that if the server masters entries that use differing
- schema, each entry's subschemaSubentry attribute must be
- interrogated. This may change as further fine-tuning is done to
- the data model.
-
-C.3.2 Section 4.1.12
-
- - Specified that the criticality field is only used for requests and
- not for unbind or abandon. Noted that it is ignored for all other
- operations.
-
-C.3.3 Section 4.2
-
- - Noted that Server behavior is undefined when the name is a null
- value, simple authentication is used, and a password is specified.
-
-C.3.4 Section 4.2.(various)
-
- - Changed "unauthenticated" to "anonymous" and "DN" and "LDAPDN" to
- "name"
-
-C.3.5 Section 4.2.2
-
- - Changed "there is no authentication or encryption being performed
- by a lower layer" to "the underlying transport service cannot
- guarantee confidentiality"
-
-C.3.6 Section 4.5.2
-
- - Removed all mention of ExtendedResponse due to lack of
- implementation.
-
-C.4 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt:
+C.1.6 Section 4.1.2 (String Types)
+
+ - Stated that LDAPOID is constrained to <numericoid> from [Models].
+
+
+C.1.7 Section 4.1.5.1 (Binary Option) and others
+
+ - Removed the Binary Option from the specification. There are
+ numerous interoperability problems associated with this method of
+ alternate attribute type encoding. Work to specify a suitable
+ replacement is ongoing.
+
+C.1.8 Section 4.1.8 (Attribute)
+
+ - Combined the definitions of PartialAttribute and Attribute here,
+ and defined Attribute in terms of PartialAttribute.
+
+
+C.1.9 Section 4.1.10 (Result Message)
+
+ - Renamed "errorMessage" to "diagnosticMessage" as it is allowed to
+ be sent for non-error results.
+ - Moved some language into Appendix A, and refer the reader there.
+ - Allowed matchedDN to be present for other result codes than those
+ listed in RFC 2251.
+ - renamed the code "strongAuthRequired" to "strongerAuthRequired" to
+ clarify that this code may often be returned to indicate that a
+ stronger authentication is needed to perform a given operation.
+
+
+C.1.10 Section 4.1.11 (Referral)
+
+ - Defined referrals in terms of URIs rather than URLs.
+ - Removed the requirement that all referral URIs MUST be equally
+ capable of progressing the operation. The statement was ambiguous
+ and provided no instructions on how to carry it out.
+ - Added the requirement that clients MUST NOT loop between servers.
+ - Clarified the instructions for using LDAPURLs in referrals, and in
+ doing so added a recommendation that the scope part be present.
+ - Removed imperatives which required clients to use URLs in specific
+ ways to progress an operation. These did nothing for
+ interoperability.
+
+
+C.1.11 Section 4.1.12 (Controls)
+
+ - Specified how control values defined in terms of ASN.1 are to be
+ encoded.
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 47 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 58
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-C.4.1 Section 4
-
- - Removed "typically" from "and is typically transferred" in the
- first paragraph. We know of no (and can conceive of no) case where
- this isn't true.
- - Added "Section 5.1 specifies how the LDAP protocol is encoded." To
- the first paragraph. Added this cross reference for readability.
- - Changed "version 3 " to "version 3 or later" in the second
- paragraph. This was added to clarify the original intent.
- - Changed "protocol version" to "protocol versions" in the third
- paragraph. This attribute is multi-valued with the intent of
- holding all supported versions, not just one.
-
-C.4.2 Section 4.1.8
-
- - Changed "when transferred in protocol" to "when transferred from
- the server to the client" in the first paragraph. This is to
- clarify that this behavior only happens when attributes are being
- sent from the server.
-
-C.4.3 Section 4.1.10
-
- - Changed "servers will return responses containing fields of type
- LDAPResult" to "servers will return responses of LDAPResult or
- responses containing the components of LDAPResponse". This
- statement was incorrect and at odds with the ASN.1. The fix here
- reflects the original intent.
- - Dropped '--new' from result codes ASN.1. This simplification in
- comments just reduces unneeded verbiage.
-
-C.4.4 Section 4.1.11
-
- - Changed "It contains a reference to another server (or set of
- servers)" to "It contains one or more references to one or more
- servers or services" in the first paragraph. This reflects the
- original intent and clarifies that the URL may point to non-LDAP
- services.
-
-C.4.5 Section 4.1.12
-
+ - Noted that the criticality field is only applied to request
+ messages (except UnbindRequest), and must be ignored when present
+ on response messages and UnbindRequest.
+ - Added language regarding combinations of controls and the ordering
+ of controls on a message.
+ - Specified that when the semantics of the combination of controls
+ is undefined or unknown, it results in a protocolError.
- Changed "The server MUST be prepared" to "Implementations MUST be
prepared" in the eighth paragraph to reflect that both client and
server implementations must be able to handle this (as both parse
controls).
-
-C.4.6 Section 4.4
-
- - Changed "One unsolicited notification is defined" to "One
- unsolicited notification (Notice of Disconnection) is defined" in
- the third paragraph. For clarity and readability.
-C.4.7 Section 4.5.1
-
-
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 48 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- - Changed "checking for the existence of the objectClass attribute"
- to "checking for the presence of the objectClass attribute" in the
- last paragraph. This was done as a measure of consistency (we use
- the terms present and presence rather than exists and existence in
- search filters).
-C.4.8 Section 4.5.3
-
- - Changed "outstanding search operations to different servers," to
- "outstanding search operations" in the fifth paragraph as they may
- be to the same server. This is a point of clarification.
+C.1.12 Section 4.2 (Bind Operation)
-C.4.9 Section 4.6
-
- - Changed "clients MUST NOT attempt to delete" to "clients MUST NOT
- attempt to add or delete" in the second to last paragraph.
- - Change "using the "delete" form" to "using the "add" or "delete"
- form" in the second to last paragraph.
+ - Mandated that servers return protocolError when the version is not
+ supported.
+ - Disambiguated behavior when the simple authentication is used, the
+ name is empty and the password is non-empty.
+ - Required servers to not dereference aliases for Bind. This was
+ added for consistency with other operations and to help ensure
+ data consistency.
+ - Required that textual passwords be transferred as UTF-8 encoded
+ Unicode, and added recommendations on string preparation. This was
+ to help ensure interoperability of passwords being sent from
+ different clients.
-C.4.10 Section 4.7
-
- - Changed "Clients MUST NOT supply the createTimestamp or
- creatorsName attributes, since these will be generated
- automatically by the server." to "Clients MUST NOT supply NO-USER-
- MODIFICATION attributes such as createTimestamp or creatorsName
- attributes, since these are provided by the server." in the
- definition of the attributes field. This tightens the language to
- reflect the original intent and to not leave a hole in which one
- could interpret the two attributes mentioned as the only non-
- writable attributes.
-C.4.11 Section 4.11
-
- - Changed "has been" to "will be" in the fourth paragraph. This
- clarifies that the server will (not has) abandon the operation.
-
+C.1.13 Section 4.2.1 (Sequencing of the Bind Request)
-C.5 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-03.txt:
+ - This section was largely reorganized for readability and language
+ was added to clarify the authentication state of failed and
+ abandoned Bind operations.
+ - Removed: "If a SASL transfer encryption or integrity mechanism has
+ been negotiated, that mechanism does not support the changing of
+ credentials from one identity to another, then the client MUST
+ instead establish a new connection."
+ If there are dependencies between multiple negotiations of a
+ particular SASL mechanism, the technical specification for that
+ SASL mechanism details how applications are to deal with them.
+ LDAP should not require any special handling.
+ - Dropped MUST imperative in paragraph 3 to align with [Keywords].
+ - Mandated that clients not send non-Bind operations while a Bind is
+ in progress, and suggested that servers not process them if they
+ are received. This is needed to ensure proper sequencing of the
+ Bind in relationship to other operations.
-C.5.1 Section 3.2.1
- - Changed "An attribute is a type with one or more associated
- values. The attribute type is identified by a short descriptive
- name and an OID (object identifier). The attribute type governs
- whether there can be more than one value of an attribute of that
- type in an entry, the syntax to which the values must conform, the
- kinds of matching which can be performed on values of that
- attribute, and other functions." to " An attribute is a
- description (a type and zero or more options) with one or more
- associated values. The attribute type governs whether the
- attribute can have multiple values, the syntax and matching rules
- used to construct and compare values of that attribute, and other
- functions. Options indicate modes of transfer and other
+C.1.14 Section 4.2.3 (Bind Response)
+
+ - Moved most error-related text to Appendix A, and added text
+ regarding certain errors used in conjunction with the Bind
+ operation.
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 49 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 59
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- functions.". This points out that an attribute consists of both
- the type and options.
-
-C.5.2 Section 4
-
- - Changed "Section 5.1 specifies the encoding rules for the LDAP
- protocol" to "Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded
- and transferred."
-
-C.5.3 Section 4.1.2
-
- - Added ABNF for the textual representation of LDAPOID. Previously,
- there was no formal BNF for this construct.
-
-C.5.4 Section 4.1.4
-
- - Changed "This identifier may be written as decimal digits with
- components separated by periods, e.g. "2.5.4.10"" to "may be
- written as defined by ldapOID in section 4.1.2" in the second
- paragraph. This was done because we now have a formal BNF
- definition of an oid.
-
-C.5.5 Section 4.1.5
-
- - Changed the BNF for AttributeDescription to ABNF. This was done
- for readability and consistency (no functional changes involved).
- - Changed "Options present in an AttributeDescription are never
- mutually exclusive." to "Options MAY be mutually exclusive. An
- AttributeDescription with mutually exclusive options is treated as
- an undefined attribute type." for clarity. It is generally
- understood that this is the original intent, but the wording could
- be easily misinterpreted.
- - Changed "Any option could be associated with any AttributeType,
- although not all combinations may be supported by a server." to
- "Though any option or set of options could be associated with any
- AttributeType, the server support for certain combinations may be
- restricted by attribute type, syntaxes, or other factors.". This
- is to clarify the meaning of 'combination' (it applies both to
- combination of attribute type and options, and combination of
- options). It also gives examples of *why* they might be
- unsupported.
-
-C.5.6 Section 4.1.11
-
- - Changed the wording regarding 'equally capable' referrals to "If
- multiple URLs are present, the client assumes that any URL may be
- used to progress the operation.". The previous language implied
- that the server MUST enforce rules that it was practically
- incapable of. The new language highlights the original intent--
- that is, that any of the referrals may be used to progress the
- operation, there is no inherent 'weighting' mechanism.
-
-C.5.7 Section 4.5.1 and Appendix A
-
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 50 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- - Added the comment "-- initial and final can occur at most once",
- to clarify this restriction.
-
-C.5.8 Section 5.1
-
- - Changed heading from "Mapping Onto BER-based Transport Services"
- to "Protocol Encoding".
+ - Prohibited the server from specifying serverSaslCreds when not
+ appropriate.
-C.5.9 Section 5.2.1
- - Changed "The LDAPMessage PDUs" to "The encoded LDAPMessage PDUs"
- to point out that the PDUs are encoded before being streamed to
- TCP.
+C.1.15 Section 4.3 (Unbind Operation)
+
+ - Specified that both peers are to cease transmission and terminate
+ the LDAP session for the Unbind operation.
-C.6 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-04.txt:
-C.6.1 Section 4.5.1 and Appendix A
+C.1.16 Section 4.4 (Unsolicited Notification)
- - Changed the ASN.1 for the and and or choices of Filter to have a
- lower range of 1. This was an omission in the original ASN.1
+ - Added instructions for future specifications of Unsolicited
+ Notifications.
-C.6.2 Various
- - Fixed various typo's
+C.1.17 Section 4.5.1 (Search Request)
-C.7 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-05.txt:
+ - SearchRequest attributes is now defined as an AttributeSelection
+ type rather than AttributeDescriptionList, and an ABNF is
+ provided.
+ - SearchRequest attributes may contain duplicate attribute
+ descriptions. This was previously prohibited. Now servers are
+ instructed to ignore subsequent names when they are duplicated.
+ This was relaxed in order to allow different short names and also
+ OIDs to be requested for an attribute.
+ - The Filter choice SubstringFilter substrings type is now defined
+ with a lower bound of 1.
+ - The SubstringFilter substrings 'initial, 'any', and 'final' types
+ are now AssertionValue rather than LDAPString. Also, added
+ imperatives stating that 'initial' (if present) must be listed
+ first, and 'final' (if present) must be listed last.
+ - Disambiguated the semantics of the derefAliases choices. There was
+ question as to whether derefInSearching applied to the base object
+ in a wholeSubtree Search.
+ - Added instructions for equalityMatch, substrings, greaterOrEqual,
+ lessOrEqual, and approxMatch.
-C.7.1 Section 3.2.1
-
- - Added "(as defined in Section 12.4.1 of [X.501])" to the fifth
- paragraph when talking about "operational attributes". This is
- because the term "operational attributes" is never defined.
- Alternately, we could drag a definition into the spec, for now,
- I'm just pointing to the reference in X.501.
-C.7.2 Section 4.1.5
+C.1.18 Section 4.5.2 (Search Result)
+
+ - Recommended that servers not use attribute short names when it
+ knows they are ambiguous or may cause interoperability problems.
+ - Removed all mention of ExtendedResponse due to lack of
+ implementation.
- - Changed "And is also case insensitive" to "The entire
- AttributeDescription is case insensitive". This is to clarify
- whether we're talking about the entire attribute description, or
- just the options.
- - Expounded on the definition of attribute description options. This
- doc now specifies a difference between transfer and tagging
- options and describes the semantics of each, and how and when
- subtyping rules apply. Now allow options to be transmitted in any
- order but disallow any ordering semantics to be implied. These
- changes are the result of ongoing input from an engineering team
- designed to deal with ambiguity issues surrounding attribute
- options.
+C.1.19 Section 4.5.3 (Continuation References in the Search Result)
+
+ - Made changes similar to those made to Section 4.1.11.
-C.7.3 Sections 4.1.5.1 and 4.1.6
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 51 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- - Refer to non "binary" transfer encodings as "native encoding"
- rather than "string" encoding to clarify and avoid confusion.
-
-C.8 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt:
-
-C.8.1 Title
-
- - Changed to "LDAP: The Protocol" to be consisted with other working
- group documents
-
-C.8.2 Abstract
-
- - Moved above TOC to conform to new guidelines
-
- - Reworded to make consistent with other WG documents.
-
- - Moved 2119 conventions to "Conventions" section
-
-C.8.3 Introduction
-
- - Created to conform to new guidelines
-
-C.8.4 Models
-
- - Removed section. There is only one model in this document
- (Protocol Model)
-
-C.8.5 Protocol Model
-
- - Removed antiquated paragraph: "In keeping with the goal of easing
- the costs associated with use of the directory, it is an objective
- of this protocol to minimize the complexity of clients so as to
- facilitate widespread deployment of applications capable of using
- the directory."
-
- - Removed antiquated paragraph concerning LDAP v1 and v2 and
- referrals.
-
-C.8.6 Data Model
-
- - Removed Section 3.2 and subsections. These have been moved to
- [Models]
-
-C.8.7 Relationship to X.500
-
- - Removed section. It has been moved to [Roadmap]
-
-C.8.8 Server Specific Data Requirements
-
- - Removed section. It has been moved to [Models]
-
-C.8.9 Elements of Protocol
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 52 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- - Added "Section 5.1 specifies how the protocol is encoded and
- transferred." to the end of the first paragraph for reference.
-
- - Reworded notes about extensibility, and now talk about implied
- extensibility and the use of ellipses in the ASN.1
-
- - Removed references to LDAPv2 in third and fourth paragraphs.
-
-C.8.10 Message ID
-
- - Reworded second paragraph to "The message ID of a request MUST
- have a non-zero value different from the values of any other
- requests outstanding in the LDAP session of which this message is
- a part. The zero value is reserved for the unsolicited
- notification message." (Added notes about non-zero and the zero
- value).
-
-C.8.11 String Types
-
- - Removed ABNF for LDAPOID and added "Although an LDAPOID is encoded
- as an OCTET STRING, values are limited to the definition of
- numericoid given in Section 1.3 of [Models]."
-
-C.8.12 Distinguished Name and Relative Distinguished Name
-
- - Removed ABNF and referred to [Models] and [LDAPDN] where this is
- defined.
-
-C.8.13 Attribute Type
-
- - Removed sections. It's now in the [Models] doc.
-
-C.8.14 Attribute Description
-
- - Removed ABNF and aligned section with [Models]
-
- - Moved AttributeDescriptionList here.
-
-C.8.15 Transfer Options
-
- - Added section and consumed much of old options language (while
- aligning with [Models]
-
-C.8.16 Binary Transfer Option
-
- - Clarified intent regarding exactly what is to be BER encoded.
-
- - Clarified that clients must not expect ;binary when not asking for
- it (;binary, as opposed to ber encoded data).
-
-
-C.8.17 Attribute
-
- - Use the term "attribute description" in lieu of "type"
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 53 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 60
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+C.1.20 Section 4.5.3.1 (Example)
+
+ - Fixed examples to adhere to changes made to Section 4.5.3.
- - Clarified the fact that clients cannot rely on any apparent
- ordering of attribute values.
-
-C.8.18 LDAPResult
-
- - To resultCode, added ellipses "..." to the enumeration to indicate
- extensibility. and added a note, pointing to [LDAPIANA]
-
- - Removed error groupings ad refer to Appendix A.
-
-C.8.19 Bind Operation
-
- - Added "Prior to the BindRequest, the implied identity is
- anonymous. Refer to [AuthMeth] for the authentication-related
- semantics of this operation." to the first paragraph.
-
- - Added ellipses "..." to AuthenticationChoice and added a note
- "This type is extensible as defined in Section 3.6 of [LDAPIANA].
- Servers that do not support a choice supplied by a client will
- return authMethodNotSupported in the result code of the
- BindResponse."
-
- - Simplified text regarding how the server handles unknown versions.
- Removed references to LDAPv2
-
-C.8.20 Sequencing of the Bind Request
-
- - Aligned with [AuthMeth] In particular, paragraphs 4 and 6 were
- removed, while a portion of 4 was retained (see C.8.9)
-
-C.8.21 Authentication and other Security Service
-
- - Section was removed. Now in [AuthMeth]
-
-C.8.22 Continuation References in the Search Result
-
- - Added "If the originating search scope was singleLevel, the scope
- part of the URL will be baseObject."
-
-C.8.23 Security Considerations
-
- - Removed reference to LDAPv2
-
-C.8.24 Result Codes
-
- - Added as normative appendix A
-
-C.8.25 ASN.1
-
- - Added EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED
-
- - Added a number of comments holding referenced to [Models] and
- [ISO10646].
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 54 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
-
- - Removed AttributeType. It is not used.
-
-
-C.9 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-07.txt:
-
- - Removed all mention of transfer encodings and the binary attribute
- option
- - Further alignment with [Models].
+C.1.21 Section 4.6 (Modify Operation)
- - Added extensibility ellipsis to protocol op choice
-
- - In 4.1.1, clarified when connections may be dropped due to
- malformed PDUs
+ - Replaced AttributeTypeAndValues with Attribute as they are
+ equivalent.
+ - Specified the types of modification changes which might
+ temporarily violate schema. Some readers were under the impression
+ that any temporary schema violation was allowed.
- - Specified which matching rules and syntaxes are used for various
- filter items
-
-C.10 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-08.txt:
-
-C.10.1 Section 4.1.1.1:
- - Clarified when it is and isn't appropriate to return an already
- used message id.
+C.1.22 Section 4.7 (Add Operation)
-C.10.2 Section 4.1.11:
+ - Aligned Add operation with X.511 in that the attributes of the RDN
+ are used in conjunction with the listed attributes to create the
+ entry. Previously, Add required that the distinguished values be
+ present in the listed attributes.
+ - Removed requirement that the objectClass attribute MUST be
+ specified as some DSE types do not require this attribute.
+ Instead, generic wording was added, requiring the added entry to
+ adhere to the data model.
+ - Removed recommendation regarding placement of objects. This is
+ covered in the data model document.
- - Clarified that a control only applies to the message it's attached
- to.
- - Explained that the criticality field is only applicable to certain
- request messages.
-
- - Added language regarding the combination of controls.
+C.1.23 Section 4.9 (Modify DN Operation)
-C.10.3 Section 4.11:
-
- - Explained that Abandon and Unbind cannot be abandoned, and
- illustrated how to determine whether an operation has been
- abandoned.
+ - Required servers to not dereference aliases for Modify DN. This
+ was added for consistency with other operations and to help ensure
+ data consistency.
+ - Allow Modify DN to fail when moving between naming contexts.
+ - Specified what happens when the attributes of the newrdn are not
+ present on the entry.
-C.11 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-09.txt:
-
- - Fixed formatting
-
+C.1.24 Section 4.10 (Compare Operation)
-C.12 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-10.txt:
+ - Specified that compareFalse means that the Compare took place and
+ the result is false. There was confusion which lead people to
+ believe that an Undefined match resulted in compareFalse.
+ - Required servers to not dereference aliases for Compare. This was
+ added for consistency with other operations and to help ensure
+ data consistency.
-C.12.1 Section 4.1.4:
- - Removed second paragraph as this language exists in MODELS
+C.1.25 Section 4.11 (Abandon Operation)
+ - Explained that since Abandon returns no response, clients should
+ not use it if they need to know the outcome.
+ - Specified that Abandon and Unbind cannot be abandoned.
+
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 55 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 61
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-C.12.2 Section 4.2.1:
-
- - Replaced fourth paragraph. It was accidentally removed in an
- earlier edit.
-C.12.2 Section 4.13:
-
- - Added section describing the StartTLS operation (moved from
- authmeth)
+C.1.26 Section 4.12 (Extended Operation)
-C.13 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-11.txt:
-
-C.13.1 Section 4.1.9
+ - Specified how values of Extended operations defined in terms of
+ ASN.1 are to be encoded.
+ - Added instructions on what Extended operation specifications
+ consist of.
+ - Added a recommendation that servers advertise supported Extended
+ operations.
- - Changed "errorMessage" to "diagnosticMessage". Simply to indicate
- that the field may be non-empty even if a non-error resultCode is
- present.
-C.13.2 Section 4.2:
-
- - Reconciled language in "name" definition with [AuthMeth]
-
-C.13.3 Section 4.2.1
-
- - Renamed to "Processing of the Bind Request", and moved some text
- from 4.2 into this section.
-
- - Rearranged paragraphs to flow better.
-
- - Specified that (as well as failed) an abandoned bind operation
- will leave the connection in an anonymous state.
-
-C.13.4 Section 4.5.3
-
- - Generalized the second paragraph which cited indexing and
- searchreferralreferences.
+C.1.27 Section 5.2 (Transfer Protocols)
-C.14 Changes made to draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-12.txt:
-
- - Reworked bind errors.
- - General clarifications and edits
-
-Appendix D - Outstanding Work Items
+ - Moved referral-specific instructions into referral-related
+ sections.
-D.0 General
- - Integrate notational consistency agreements WG will discuss
- notation consistency. Once agreement happens, reconcile draft.
-
- - Reconcile problems with [Models]. Section 3.2 was wholly removed.
- There were some protocol semantics in that section that need to be
- brought back. Specifically, there was the notion of the server
- implicitly adding objectclass superclasses when a value is added.
-
-D.1 Make result code usage consistent.
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 56 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- - While there is a result code appendix, ensure it speaks of result
- codes in a general sense, and only highlight specific result codes
- in the context of an operation when that operation ties more
- specific meanings to that result code.
-
-
-D.2 Verify references.
-
- - Many referenced documents have changed. Ensure references and
- section numbers are correct.
-
-D.3 Usage of Naming Context
+C.1.28 Section 7 (Security Considerations)
- - Make sure occurrences of "namingcontext" and "naming context" are
- consistent with [Models]. Use in section 6.2 should be reworked.
- It's layers of indirection that matter, not number of contexts.
- (That is, referrals can be returned for a number of reasons (cross
- reference, superior, subordinate, busy, not master, etc.)
-
- Other uses are fine.
+ - Reworded notes regarding SASL not protecting certain aspects of
+ the LDAP Bind PDUs.
+ - Noted that Servers are encouraged to prevent directory
+ modifications by clients that have authenticated anonymously
+ [AuthMeth].
+ - Added a note regarding the scenario where an identity is changed
+ (deleted, privileges or credentials modified, etc.).
+ - Warned against following referrals that may have been injected in
+ the data stream.
+ - Noted that servers should protect information equally, whether in
+ an error condition or not, and mentioned specifically; matchedDN,
+ diagnosticMessage, and resultCodes.
+ - Added a note regarding malformed and long encodings.
-D.4 Review 2119 usage
-
-
-D.5 Reconcile with I-D Nits
-
-D.23 Section 4.5.3
-
- - A server MUST NOT return any SearchResultReference if it has not
- located the baseObject and thus has not searched any entries; in
- this case it would return a SearchResultDone containing a referral
- resultCode.
-
- - Add "Similarly, a server MUST NOT return a SearchResultReference
- when the scope of the search is baseObject. If a client receives
- such a SearchResultReference it MUST interpret is as a protocol
- error and MUST NOT follow it." to the first paragraph.
- The technical specification doesn't have to describe how a
- protocol peer should react when its partner violates an absolute.
+C.1.29 Appendix A (Complete ASN.1 Definition)
+
+ - Added "EXTENSIBILITY IMPLIED" to ASN.1 definition.
+ - Removed AttributeType. It is not used.
- OR return noSuchObject.
+
+C.2 Changes made to RFC 2830:
- - Add "If the scope part of the LDAP URL is present, the client MUST
- use the new scope in its next request to progress the search. If
- the scope part is absent the client MUST use subtree scope to
- complete subtree searches and base scope to complete one level
- searches." to the third paragraph.
+ This section summarizes the substantive changes made to Sections of
+ RFC 2830. Readers should consult [AuthMeth] for summaries of changes
+ to other sections.
-D.25 Section 4.6
-
+C.2.1 Section 2.3 (Response other than "success")
+
+ - Removed wording indicating that referrals can be returned from
+ StartTLS.
+ - Removed requirement that only a narrow set of result codes can be
+ returned. Some result codes are required in certain scenarios, but
+ any other may be returned if appropriate.
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 57 \f
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 62
+\f
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
- - Resolve the meaning of "and is ignored if the attribute does not
- exist". See "modify: "non-existent attribute"" on the list. Not
- sure if there's really an issue here. Will look at archive
-
-D.27 Section 4.10
-
- - Specify what happens when the attr is missing vs. attr isn't in
- schema. Also what happens if there's no equality matching rule.
- noSuchAttribute, undefinedAttributeType, inappropriateMatching
-
-D.30 Section 5.1
-
- - Add "control and extended operation values" to last paragraph. See
- "LBER (BER Restrictions)" on list.
-
-D.32 Section 6.1
- - Add "that are used by those attributes" to the first paragraph.
- - Add "Servers which support update operations MUST, and other
- servers SHOULD, support strong authentication mechanisms described
- in [RFC2829]." as a second paragraph. Likely should just say
- Requirements of authentication methods, SASL mechanisms, and TLS
- are described in [AUTHMETH]." (also apply to next two below)
- - Add "Servers which provide access to sensitive information MUST,
- and other servers SHOULD support privacy protections such as those
- described in [RFC2829] and [RFC2830]." as a third paragraph.
-D.33 Section 7
+C.2.1 Section 4 (Closing a TLS Connection)
- - Add "Servers which support update operations MUST, and other
- servers SHOULD, support strong authentication mechanisms described
- in [RFC2829]." as a fourth paragraph.
- - Add "In order to automatically follow referrals, clients may need
- to hold authentication secrets. This poses significant privacy and
- security concerns and SHOULD be avoided." as a sixth paragraph.
- There are concerns with "automatic" chasing regardless of which,
- if any, authentication method/mechanism is used.
+ - Reworded most of this section and added the requirement that after
+ the TLS connection has been closed, the server MUST NOT send
+ responses to any request message received before the TLS closure.
+ - Removed instructions on abrupt closure as this is covered in other
+ areas of the document (specifically, Section 5.3)
- - Add notes regarding DoS attack found by CERT advisories.
-
-D.34 Appendix C
- - C.9. Explain why we removed ;binary, and what clients can do to
- get around potential problems (likely refer to an I-D)
-
+C.3 Changes made to RFC 3771:
+ - Rewrote to fit into this document. In general, semantics were
+ preserved. Supporting and background language seen as redundant
+ due to its presence in this document was omitted.
+ - Specified that Intermediate responses to a request may be of
+ different types, and one of the response types may be specified to
+ have no response value.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 58 \f
- Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
-
- Full Copyright Statement
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
-
- This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
- others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
- or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
- and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
- kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
- included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
- document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
- the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
- Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
- developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
- copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
- followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
- English.
-
- The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
- revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
-
- This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
- "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
- TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
- BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
- HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
- MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 63
+\f
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Version 3
+
+
+
+
+Intellectual Property Statement
+
+ 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.
+
+Disclaimer of Validity
+
+ 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.
+
+Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+ Internet Society.
-Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Sep 2003 Page 59 \f
\ No newline at end of file
+Sermersheim Internet-Draft - Expires Aug 2005 Page 64
+\f
\ No newline at end of file
projects / openldap / blobdiff