From: Kurt Zeilenga Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:43:00 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Add RFC 2926 X-Git-Tag: OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_2_BP~11 X-Git-Url: https://git.sur5r.net/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=cb127ff2dcc8036a2c883b83859d5bf05ce26acd;p=openldap Add RFC 2926 --- diff --git a/doc/rfc/INDEX b/doc/rfc/INDEX index 7b1e4611e2..c9b3e1f06a 100644 --- a/doc/rfc/INDEX +++ b/doc/rfc/INDEX @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ rfc2829.txt LDAPv3: Authentication Methods (PS) rfc2830.txt LDAPv3: Start TLS (PS) rfc2849.txt LDIFv1 (PS) rfc2891.txt LDAPv3: Server Side Sorting of Search Results (PS) +rfc2926.txt LDAP: Conversion of LDAP Schemas to and from SLP Templates (I) rfc3045.txt Storing Vendor Information in the LDAP root DSE (I) rfc3062.txt LDAP Password Modify Extended Operation (PS) rfc3088.txt OpenLDAP Root Service (E) diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2926.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2926.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a7b081d0c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2926.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1515 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group J. Kempf +Request for Comments: 2926 Sun Microsystems, Inc. +Category: Informational R. Moats + Coreon, Inc. + P. St. Pierre + Sun Microsystems, Inc. + September 2000 + + + Conversion of LDAP Schemas to and from SLP Templates + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + This document describes a procedure for mapping between Service + Location Protocol (SLP) service advertisements and lightweight + directory access protocol (LDAP) descriptions of services. The + document covers two aspects of the mapping. One aspect is mapping + between SLP service type templates and LDAP directory schema. + Because the SLP service type template grammar is relatively simple, + mapping from service type templates to LDAP types is straightforward. + Mapping in the other direction is straightforward if the attributes + are restricted to use just a few of the syntaxes defined in RFC 2252. + If arbitrary ASN.1 types occur in the schema, then the mapping is + more complex and may even be impossible. The second aspect is + representation of service information in an LDAP directory. The + recommended representation simplifies interoperability with SLP by + allowing SLP directory agents to backend into LDAP directory servers. + The resulting system allows service advertisements to propagate + easily between SLP and LDAP. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + +Table of Contents + + 1.0 Introduction ................................................ 2 + 2.0 Mapping SLP Templates to LDAP Schema ........................ 3 + 2.1 Mapping from SLP Attribute Types to LDAP Attribute Types .. 8 + 2.1.1 Integer ............................................... 8 + 2.1.2 String ................................................ 8 + 2.1.3 Boolean ............................................... 9 + 2.1.4 Opaque ................................................ 9 + 2.2 Keyword Attributes ........................................ 9 + 2.3 Template Flags ............................................ 9 + 2.3.1 Multi-valued .......................................... 9 + 2.3.2 Optional .............................................. 10 + 2.3.3 Literal ............................................... 10 + 2.3.4 Explicit Matching ..................................... 10 + 2.4 Default and Allowed Value Lists ........................... 10 + 2.5 Descriptive Text .......................................... 11 + 2.6 Generating LDAP Attribute OIDs ............................ 11 + 2.7 Example ................................................... 11 + 3.0 Attribute Name Conflicts .................................... 15 + 4.0 Mapping from Schema to Templates ............................ 15 + 4.1 Mapping LDAP Attribute Types to SLP Attribute Types ....... 16 + 4.2 Mapping ASN.1 Types to SLP Types .......................... 17 + 4.2.1 Integer ............................................... 18 + 4.2.2 Boolean ............................................... 18 + 4.2.3 Enumerated ............................................ 18 + 4.2.4 Object Identifier ..................................... 19 + 4.2.5 Octet String .......................................... 19 + 4.2.6 Real .................................................. 19 + 4.3 Example ASN.1 Schema ...................................... 19 + 5.0 Representing SLP Service Advertisements in an LDAP DIT ...... 22 + 6.0 Internationalization Considerations ......................... 24 + 7.0 Security Considerations ..................................... 24 + 8.0 References .................................................. 25 + 9.0 Authors' Addresses .......................................... 26 + 10.0 Full Copyright Statement ................................... 27 + +1.0 Introduction + + SLP templates [1] are intended to create a simple encoding of the + syntactic and semantic conventions for individual service types, + their attributes, and conventions. They can easily be generated, + transmitted, read by humans and parsed by programs, as it is a string + based syntax with required comments. Directory schemas serve to + formalize directory entry structures for use with LDAP [2] These + directories serve to store information about many types of entities. + Network services are an example of one such entity. + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + Interoperability between SLP and LDAP is important so clients using + one protocol derive benefit from services registered through the + other. In addition, LDAP directory servers can serve as the backend + for SLP directory agents (DAs) if interoperability is possible In + order to facilitate interoperability, this document creates mappings + between the SLP template grammar and LDAP directory schema, and + establishes some conventions for representing service advertisements + in LDAP directories. The goal of the translation is to allow SLPv2 + queries (which are syntactically and semantically equivalent to + LDAPv3 string queries [7]) to be submitted to an LDAP directory + server by an SLP DA backended into LDAP without extensive processing + by the DA. + + The simple notation and syntactic/semantic attribute capabilities of + SLP templates map easily into directory schemas, and are easily + converted into directory schemas, even by automated means. The + reverse may not be true. If the LDAP schema contains attributes with + unrecognized or complex syntaxes, the translation may be difficult or + impossible. If, however, the LDAP schema only uses a few of the + common syntaxes defined in RFC 2252 [8], then the translation is more + straightforward. In addition, to foster complete bidirectionality, + the mapping must follow a very specific representation in its DESC + attributes. + + This document outlines the correct mappings for SLP templates into + the syntactic representation specified for LDAP directory schema by + RFC 2252 [8]. This syntax is a subset of the ASN.1/BER described in + the X.209 specification [9], and is used by the LDAPv3 [2] directory + schema. Likewise, rules and guidelines are proposed to facilitate + consistent mapping of ASN.1 based schemas to be translated in the SLP + template grammar. Finally, a proposal for a representation of service + advertisements in LDAP directory services is made that facilitates + SLP interoperability. + + Except when used as elements in the definition of LDAP schemas, the + key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [16]. + +2.0 Mapping SLP Templates to LDAP Schema + + We define the following abstract object class as the parent class for + all services. Any specific service type is a subclass of this, with + its own attributes: + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.2.1 + NAME 'slpService' + DESC 'parent superclass for SLP services' + ABSTRACT + SUP top + MUST ( template-major-version-number $ + template-minor-version-number $ + description $ + template-url-syntax $ + service-advert-service-type $ + service-advert-scopes ) + MAY ( service-advert-url-authenticator $ + service-advert-attribute-authenticator ) ) + + The attributes correspond to various parts of the SLP service + template and SLP service advertisement. + + SLP service type templates begin with four definitions that set the + context of the template: + + template-type - This defines the service type of the template. The + service type can be a simple service type, like "service:ftp", an + abstract service type, like "service:printer" or a concrete + service type, like "service:printer:lpr". The type name can + additionally include a naming authority, for example + "service:printer.sun:local". The name that appears in this field + omits the "service:" prefix. + + template-version - A string containing a major and minor version + number, separated by a period. + + template-description - A block of human readable text describing + what the service type does. + + template-url-syntax - An ABNF [6] grammar describing the service + type specific part of the service URL. + + The SLP template-type definition is used as the name of the LDAP + object class for the template, a subclass of the "slpService" class, + together with the "service" prefix to indicate that the name is for a + service. In the translating service type name, colons and the period + separating the naming authority are converted into hyphens. If the + template defines an SLP concrete type, the concrete type name is + used; the abstract type name is never used. For example, the + template for "service:printer:lpr" is translated into an LDAP object + class called "service-printer-lpr". Furthermore, if the type name + contains a naming authority, the naming authority name must be + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + included. For example, the service type name + "service:printer.sun:local" becomes "service-printer-sun-local". The + LDAP object class is always "STRUCTURAL". + + The template-version definition is partitioned into two attributes, + template-major-version-number and template-minor-version-number. The + LDAP definition for these attributes is: + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.1.1 + NAME 'template-major-version-number' + DESC 'The major version number of the service type template' + EQUALITY integerMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 + SINGLE-VALUE + ) + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.1.2 + NAME 'template-minor-version-number' + DESC 'The minor version number of the service type template' + EQUALITY integerMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 + SINGLE-VALUE + ) + + The template-url-syntax definition in the SLP template is described + by the following attribute: + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.1.3 + NAME 'template-url-syntax' + DESC 'An ABNF grammar describing the service type + specific part of the service URL' + EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 + SINGLE-VALUE + ) + + The template-description attribute is translated into the X.520 + standard attribute "description" [3]. + + We further establish the convention that SLP template characteristics + that can't be translated into LDAP are inserted into the DESC field + of the object class definition. The items are separated by empty + lines (consisting of two "LINE FEED" characters), are preceded by a + LINE FEED character, and are tagged at the beginning of the line to + indicate what they represent. This allows the template to be + reconstructed from the schema by properly parsing the comments. + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + The bulk of an SLP template consists of attribute definitions. There + are four items in an SLP template attribute definition that need to + be mapped into LDAP: + + Attribute Name - Since SLPv2 attribute names are defined to be + compatible with LDAPv3, SLP attributes map directly into LDAP + attributes with no change. Similarly, LDAP attributes map directly + to SLP attributes. + + Attribute Type - The SLP attribute type is mapped into the LDAP + attribute type. + + Attribute Flags - The SLP attribute flags are mapped into + characteristics of the LDAP attribute definition, or into the DESC + field if no equivalent LDAP attribute definition characteristic + occurs. + + Default and Allowed Values - These must be handled by the client + or a DA enabled to handle templates, as in SLP. For reference, + however, they should be included in the DESC field of the LDAP + attribute definition. + + Descriptive Text - The SLP template descriptive text should be + mapped into the DESC field. + + We discuss mapping of types, flags, default and allowed values, and + descriptive text in the subsections below. + + OIDs for SLP template conversion schema elements are standardized + under the enterprise number of SrvLoc.Org (6252) [18]. + + For purposes of representing an SLP entry, we also define two + standardized LDAP syntaxes and attributes with standardized OIDs. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.2.2 + DESC 'SLP Service Type' + ) + + Defines the syntax for the service type name. The syntax is defined + in the BNF for the service URL in RFC 2609 Section 2.1 [1]. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.2.3 + DESC 'SLP Scope' + ) + + Defines the syntax for the scope name. The syntax is defined in the + BNF for scope names in RFC 2608 Section 6.4.1 [5]. + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.1.4 + NAME 'service-advert-service-type' + DESC 'The service type of the service advertisement, including + the "service:" prefix.' + EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.2.2 + SINGLE-VALUE + ) + + Defines an attribute for the service type name. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.1.5 + NAME 'service-advert-scopes' + DESC 'A list of scopes for a service advertisement.' + EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.2.3 + ) + + Defines a multivalued attribute for the scopes. + + Searches for abstract types can be made with an LDAP query that + wildcards the concrete type. For example, a search for all service + advertisements of the printer abstract type can be made with the + following query: + + (service-advert-service-type=service:printer:*) + + SLP specifies that service URLs and attribute lists can be + accompanied by a structured authenticator consisting of a digital + signature and information necessary to verify the signature. A + syntax and two standardized SLP attributes are defined for this + purpose: + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.2.3 DESC 'SLP Authenticator') + + The syntax of an SLP authenticator is the bytes of the + authenticator in network byte order, see RFC 2608, Section 9.2 + [5]. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.1.6 + NAME 'service-advert-url-authenticator' + DESC 'The authenticator for the URL, null if none.' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.2.3 + SINGLE-VALUE + ) + + This attribute contains the SLP URL authenticator, as defined in + RFC 2608, Section 9.2 [5]. + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.1.7 + NAME 'service-advert-attribute-authenticator' + DESC 'The authenticator for the attribute list, null if none.' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.6252.2.27.6.2.3 + SINGLE_VALUE + ) + + This attribute contains the SLP attribute authenticator, as + defined in RFC 2608, Section 9.2 [5]. + +2.1 Mapping from SLP Attribute Types to LDAP Attribute Types + + We define the mapping from SLP attribute types to LDAP as follows: + + SLP Type ASN.1 Type LDAP Type + --------------------------------------------------- + Integer INTEGER INTEGER + String DirectoryString Directory String + Boolean BOOLEAN Boolean + Opaque OCTET STRING Octet String + Keyword (N/A) IA5 String + + The following subsections discuss further details of the mapping. + +2.1.1 Integer + + SLP integers compare as integers when performing a query. LDAP + integers behave similarly. Consequently, the mapping from the SLP + integer type to LDAP is INTEGER, with the integerMatch matching rule. + +2.1.2 String + + SLP strings are encoded as described in the SLP protocol + specification [5]. All value strings are considered case insensitive + for matching operations. SLP strings are not null terminated and are + encoded in UTF-8. + + SLP strings are mapped to the LDAP Directory String type. The + Directory String type exactly matches the SLP string type, i.e. it is + a non-null terminated UTF-8 string. The caseIgnoreMatch equality + rule, caseIgnoreOrderingMatch ordering rule, and + caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch substring rule are used for comparing + string attribute values. + + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + +2.1.3 Boolean + + Boolean attributes may have one of two possible values. In SLP, + these values are represented as strings, TRUE and FALSE. In SLP's + string encoding of a boolean value, case does not matter. + + The SLP Boolean type maps directly into an LDAP BOOLEAN. The + caseIgnoreMatch rule is used for equality matching. + +2.1.4 Opaque + + SLP attribute values of type Opaque are represented as OCTET STRING + in LDAP, and the octetStringMatch matching rule is used to compare + them. + +2.2 Keyword Attributes + + SLP service type templates allow the definition of keyword + attributes. Keyword attributes are attributes whose only + characteristic is their presence. Keyword attributes have no flag + information, nor any default or allowed values (since, by definition, + they have no values). + + ASN.1 has no concept of keyword attributes. Keyword attributes are + translated into a "May" clause in the ASN.1 class definition for the + service type. If the keyword attribute is present, then its value is + of no consequence, but for consistency we make it simply the NUL + character, "\00". + +2.3 Template Flags + + SLP template flags can be handled as described in the following + subsections. + +2.3.1 Multi-valued + + Multi-valued attributes are defined in an SLP template using the one + value. All values for a given attribute must be of the same type. + + LDAP attribute definitions require that a single valued attribute + include the SINGLE-VALUE tag if the attribute is single valued. + Otherwise, the attribute is assumed to be multivalued by default. + + + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + +2.3.2 Optional + + SLP uses the 'O' flag to indicate an attribute may or may not be + present. These optional attributes are defined using the "May" + clause in the ASN.1 definition class definition for the service type. + All other attributes must be defined as a "Must". + +2.3.3 Literal + + ASN.1 does not have a mechanism to indicate that the values of an + attribute may not be translated from one language to another, since + ASN.1 schema are not typically translated. This flag is dropped when + translating a template, but presence of the flag should be noted in + the DESC field. It should be placed on a separate line and tagged + with "Literal:" so the template can be reconstructed from the schema. + +2.3.4 Explicit Matching + + The SLP template syntax uses a flag of 'X' to indicate that an + attribute must be present in order for the query to be properly + satisfied. There is no provision for requiring that particular + attributes be in a query. Consequently, this flag is dropped when + translating a template, but presence of the flag should be noted in + the DESC field. It should be placed on a separate line and tagged + with "Explicit:" so the template can be reconstructed from the + schema. + +2.4 Default and Allowed Value Lists + + The SLP template grammar provides the capability to define default + and allowed values for an attribute. The SLP protocol does not + enforce these restrictions on registered attributes, however. The + default and allowed values may be used by client side applications, + or alternatively it may also be used by DAs to initialize + registrations having no attributes and to limit attribute values to + the template allowed values. + + LDAP servers also do not support default and allowed values on + attributes. Therefore, enforcement of default and allowed values in + SLP templates is left up to the clients or a DA, if the DA is + backending into LDAP. The default and allowed values should be + included in the DESC field. The comments should be placed on separate + lines and labeled with the "Default:" and "Allowed:" tags to allow + reconstruction of the template. + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + +2.5 Descriptive Text + + The descriptive text associated with an attribute definition should + be included in the DESC field. It should start on a separate line and + begin with the "Description:" tag. + +2.6 Generating LDAP Attribute OIDs + + LDAP attributes require an OID. In general, there is no a priori way + that an algorithm can be defined for generating OIDs, because it will + depend on the conventions used by the organization developing the + template. In some cases, an organization's procedure for generating + OIDs may be regular enough that a template developer can + algorithmically generate OIDs off of an assigned root. Whatever means + is used, the template developer should assure that unique OIDs are + assigned to each SLP attribute that is translated into an LDAP + attribute. + +2.7 Example + + The template included below is a hypothetical abstract printer + service template, similar to that described in [10]. + + template-type = printer + + template-version = 0.0 + + template-description = + The printer service template describes the attributes supported by + network printing devices. Devices may be either directly + connected to a network, or connected to a printer spooler that + understands the a network queuing protocol such as IPP, lpr or the + Salutation Architecture. + + template-url-syntax = + ;The URL syntax is specific to the printing protocol being + ;employed + + description = STRING + # This attribute is a free form string that can contain any + # site-specific descriptive information about this printer. + + printer-security-mechanisms-supported = STRING L M + none + # This attribute indicates the security mechanisms supported + tls, ssl, http-basic, http-digest, none + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + printer-operator = STRING O L M + # A person, or persons responsible for maintaining a + # printer on a day-to-day basis, including such tasks + # as filling empty media trays, emptying full output + # trays, replacing toner cartridges, clearing simple + # paper jams, etc. + + printer-location-address = STRING O + # Physical/Postal address for this device. Useful for + # nailing down a group of printers in a very large corporate + # network. For example: 960 Main Street, San Jose, CA 95130 + + printer-priority-queue = BOOLEAN O + FALSE + # TRUE indicates this printer or print queue is a priority + # queuing device. + + printer-number-up = INTEGER O + 1 + # This job attribute specifies the number of source + # page-images to impose upon a single side of an instance + # of a selected medium. + 1, 2, 4 + + printer-paper-output = STRING M L O + standard + # This attribute describes the mode in which pages output + # are arranged. + + standard, noncollated sort, collated sort, stack, unknown + + We assume that the concrete type "service:printer:lpr" for printers + that speak the LPR protocol [4] has the following template + definition: + + template-type = printer:lpr + + template-version = 0.0 + + template-description = + The printer:lpr service template describes the attributes + supported by network printing devices that speak the + LPR protocol. No new attributes are included. + + template-url-syntax = queue + queue = ;The queue name, see RFC 1179. + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + The LDAP class definition for the "service:printer:lpr" concrete + service type is translated as follows: + + ( ---place the assigned OID here--- + NAME 'service-printer-lpr' + DESC 'Description: The printer:lpr service template + describes the attributes supported by network printing + devices that speak the LPR protocol. No new attributes + are included. + + URL Syntax: queue + queue = ;The queue name, see RFC 1179.' + SUP slpService + MUST ( description $ security-mechanisms-supported $ + labeledURI) + MAY ( operator $ location-address $ priority-queue $ + number-up $ paper-output) + ) + + The attribute definitions are translated as follows: + + ( ---place the assigned OID here--- + NAME 'printer-security-mechanisms-supported' + DESC 'Description: This attribute indicates the security mechanisms + supported. + + Default: value + + Allowed: tls, ssl, http-basic, http-digest, none + + Literal:' + EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch + ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch + SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 + ) + + ( ---place the assigned OID here--- + NAME 'printer-operator' + DESC 'Description: A person, or persons responsible for + maintaining a printer on a day-to-day basis, including + such tasks as filling empty media trays, emptying full + output trays, replacing toner cartridges, clearing simple + paper jams, etc. + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + Literal:' + EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch + ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch + SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 + ) + + ( --place the assigned OID here--- + NAME 'printer-location-address' + DESC 'Description Physical/Postal address for this device. + Useful for nailing down a group of printers in a very + large corporate network. For example: 960 Main Street, + San Jose, CA 95130.' + EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch + ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch + SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 + SINGLE-VALUE + ) + + ( ---place the assigned OID here--- + NAME 'printer-priority-queue' + DESC 'Description: TRUE indicates this printer or print + queue is a priority queuing device.' + EQUALITY booleanMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7 + SINGLE-VALUE + ) + + ( ---place the assigned OID here--- + NAME 'printer-number-up' + DESC 'Description: This job attribute specifies the number + of source page-images to impose upon a single side of + an instance of a selected medium. This attribute is + INTEGER. + + Default: 1 + + Allowed: 1, 2, 3, 4' + EQUALITY integerMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 + SINGLE-VALUE + ) + + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + ( ---place the assigned OID here--- + NAME 'printer-paper-output' + DESC 'Description: This attribute describes the mode in + which pages output are arranged. Default value is + standard. + + Default: standard + + Allowed: standard, noncollated sort, collated sort, + stack, unknown. + Literal:' + EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch + ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch + SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 + ) + +3.0 Attribute Name Conflicts + + LDAP has a flat name space, and attribute names and OIDs must be + unique in a directory server. In order to avoid name conflicts in the + translation of SLP templates to LDAP schemas, template developers may + want to consider prepending the name of the service type to the + attribute. Postprocessing attribute names to make them unique when + translated is not possible, because it would require the DA to + rewrite queries before submitting them to the directory server. In + addition, developers should use standard LDAP attributes when such + attributes are available. + + In the above example template, the abstract type name "printer" is + prepended to attributes to avoid conflicts. The standard + "description" attribute defined by X.520 [3] is used to translate the + template description attribute. + +4.0 Mapping from Schema to Templates + + The reverse mapping from LDAP schema to SLP service type templates + requires dealing with both LDAP and ASN.1 data types. RFC 2252 + defines 33 attribute syntaxes that should be supported by LDAP + directory servers. These syntaxes are defined using BNF for strings + or using ASN.1 for binary valued attributes defined by X.520. + + Mapping of the LDAP data types into SLP template types is fairly + straightforward, but mapping arbitrary ASN.1 data types is somewhat + more complicated and requires encoding the ASN.1 data type into a + string. To a certain extent, this masks the ASN.1 data type because + it becomes impossible to distinguish between a native string having + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + content equivalent to an encoded ASN.1 string. However, inclusion of + the ASN.1 data type in the comment provides additional information + should a reverse transformation from SLP to ASN.1 be required. + + The following subsections deal with both LDAP and ASN.1 attribute + data type mappings. + +4.1 Mapping LDAP Attribute Syntaxes to SLP Attribute Types + + The following table contains the mappings for LDAP syntaxes to SLP + data types: + + LDAP Type SLP Type + -------------------------------------------------------- + ACI Item NA + Access Point NA + Attribute Type Description NA + Audio Opaque + Binary ASN.1 escape + Bit String String + Boolean Boolean + Certificate Opaque + Certificate List Opaque + Certificate Pair Opaque + Country String String + DN String + Data Quality Syntax NA + Delivery Method NA + Directory String String + DIT Content Rule Description NA + DIT Structure Rule Description NA + DL Submit Permission NA + DSA Quality Syntax NA + Enhanced Guide NA + Facsimile Telephone Number String + Fax Opaque + Generalized Time String + Guide NA + IA5 String String + INTEGER Integer + JPEG Opaque + LDAP Syntax Description NA + LDAP Schema Definition NA + LDAP Schema Description NA + Master and Shadow Access Points NA + Matching Rule Description NA + Matching Rule Use Description NA + Mail Preference NA + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + MHS OR Address String + Modify Rights NA + Name and Optional UID NA + Name Form Description NA + Numeric String String + Object Class Description NA + Octet String Opaque + OID String + Other Mailbox String + Postal Address String + Protocol Information NA + Presentation Address String + Printable String String + Substring Assertion NA + Subtree Specification NA + Supplier Information NA + Supplier or Consumer NA + Supplier And Consumer NA + Supported Algorithm NA + DSE Type NA + Telephone Number String + Teletex Terminal Identifier String + Telex Number String + UTC Time String + +4.2 Mapping ASN.1 Types to SLP Types + + ASN.1 employs a much richer set of data types than provided by SLP. + The table below show the mapping of selected ASN.1 data type to their + nearest SLP equivalent. Because of the complexity and flexibility of + ASN.1, a complete list cannot be provided. + + As sample of some ASN.1 encodings and their mappings to SLP: + + ASN.1 type SLP type + ----------------------------------------- + INTEGER Integer + BOOLEAN Boolean + ENUMERATED String + OBJECT IDENTIFIER String + OCTET STRING Opaque + REAL String + + Data types that do not map directly to SLP data types should be + defined as either a String, or as Opaque. ASN.1 types that may only + contain valid characters for Strings, as defined in X.680 [9] should + be encoded as strings. ASN.1 types such as GraphicString that change + their character set encoding in part way through a value should not + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + be encoded as strings, however, If such types are required, the SLP + Opaque type should be used. In either case, the first line of the + help text is used to indicate the original ASN.1 data type. + + The following subsections describe how to convert from the ASN.1 BER + [9] to the SLP template for the different types in the table above. + +4.2.1 Integer + + Both SLP templates and ASN.1 support Integers, so there is a one to + one mapping between an SLP Integer attribute and an ASN.1 Integer + attribute. Details on the encoding of integers is summarized in the + SLP template to ASN.1 section above. + +4.2.2 Boolean + + Boolean values are supported by both SLP and ASN.1, though on wire + encodings differ. X.680 [9] specifies zero and non-zero encoding for + booleans, where SLP encodes booleans using the strings TRUE and + FALSE. In general, most LDAP servers will use the LDAP Boolean type + (which is a string), so again the ASN.1 type should be recorded in + the comment or it will be lost. + +4.2.3 Enumerated + + SLP templates support the concept of enumerations through the listing + of allowed values in the attribute definition. These enumerations + are not strictly binding on clients or DAs, but they are similar to + the ASN.1 definition of enumerations. BER encodes the ASN.1 + enumeration by passing the number of the element's position in the + enumeration. This requires both sides to have knowledge of the + specific enumeration prior to decoding an enumeration's value. SLP + provides no specific support for transmitting enumerations. They are + simply String types. Information on the ASN.1 type and ASN.1 encoding + of the enumeration values is recorded in the comment. + + Example: + + color-supported = STRING M + none + # ASN.1: Enumeration. + # ASN.1 Mapping: none = 0, highlight = 1, three color = 2, + # four color = 4, monochromatic = 5 + #This attribute specifies whether the Printer supports + # color and, if so, what type. + none,highlight,three color,four color,monochromatic + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + +4.2.4 Object Identifier + + Object identifiers(OIDs) are commonly used in the ASN.1 world to + identify object and attributes. OIDs are a numerical representation + of an element's place in the naming hierarchy. Each element at a + particular level of a hierarchy has a unique number assigned within + that level of the hierarchy. A sample OID would be the naming tree + for SNMP MIBs: iso(1) org(3) dod(6) internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) would + be written as the string "1.3.6.1.2.1". + + Because this representation reduces down to a string of dot separated + numbers, this maps easily to the SLP String type. The help text for + this element should indicate it is an ASN.1 OID + + identifier = STRING + # ASN.1: OID + # The object identifier for this SNMP agent. + +4.2.5 Octet String + + An ASN.1 octet string should be mapped to an Opaque in an SLP + template. An octet string is a sequence of bytes, whereas an Opaque + is a a string that encodes a sequence of bytes. Again, the ASN.1 type + is lost unless recorded in the comment. + +4.2.6 Real + + There is no direct mapping between floating point numbers and any SLP + data types. Attributes having the ASN.1 type of Real are mapped to + SLP type String. Comments are added to the attribute help text + indicating the value was originally an ASN.1 real. For example: + + weight = STRING + # ASN.1: Real + # The objects weight in pounds. + +4.3 Example ASN.1 Schema + + The following is an example schema for an exported filesystem. The + section presents it as in ASN.1 and the following section shows the + SLP template translation. The template translation does not capture + the actual attribute format for the Set type, that would be done in + the LDAP client software making the translation. Note that even + though the class definition does not conform with the previously + defined conventions for SLP classes, the schema can still be + translated into an SLP template. The syntax used in this example + follows + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + -- Abstraction of a fstab entry (a "mount"). + -- These lookups would likely be performed by an + -- an automounter type application. + mount OBJECT-CLASS ::= { + SUBCLASS OF { top } + MUST CONTAIN { mountHost | + mountDirectory | + mountType + } + MAY CONTAIN { mountOption | + mountDumpFrequency | + mountPassNo + } + ID { } + } + + + - The mount host. + mountHost ATTRIBUTE ::= { + WITH SYNTAX caseIgnoreString + EQUALITY MATCHING RULE caseIgnoreMatch + SINGLE VALUE + ID { } + } + + + - The file system to mount. + mountDirectory ATTRIBUTE ::= { + WITH SYNTAX caseIgnoreString + EQUALITY MATCHING RULE caseIgnoreMatch + SINGLE VALUE + ID { } + } + + - The type of file system being mounted. + mountType ATTRIBUTE ::= { + WITH SYNTAX INTEGER { ufs(1), + hsfs(2), + nfs(3), + rfs(4) + } + EQUALITY MATCHING RULE integerMatch + SINGLE VALUE + ID { } + } + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + - Options for the mount operation. + mountOption ATTRIBUTE ::= { + WITH SYNTAX caseIgnoreString + EQUALITY MATCHING RULE caseIgnoreString + ID { } + } + + + - How often to dump the file system. + mountDumpFrequency ATTRIBUTE :: = { + WITH SYNTAX INTEGER (0..9) + EQUALITY MATCHING RULE integerMatch + SINGLE VALUE + ID { } + } + + - Boot time mount pass number. + mountPassNo ATTRIBUTE ::= { + WITH SYNTAX INTEGER + EQUALITY MATCHING RULE integerMatch + SINGLE VALUE + ID { } + } + + The translated SLP template is: + + template-type = mount + + template-version = 1.0 + + template-description = "Describes a remote filesystem access + protocol" + + template-url-syntax = + filesystem = 1*[ DIGIT / ALPHA ] + urlpath = "/" filesystem + + mountHost = STRING L + # ASN.1: Case Ignore String, Single Value + # The mount host + + mountDirectory = STRING L + # ASN.1: Case Ignore String, Single Value + # The filesystem to mount + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + mountType = STRING L + ufs + # ASN.1: Enumeration, Single Value + # ASN.1 Mapping: ufs = 1, hsfs = 2, nfs = 3, rfs = 4 + # The type of the filesystem being mounted + ufs, hsfs, nfs, rfs + + mountOption = STRING M O L + # ASN.1: Case Ignore String + # mount options for this filesystem + + mountDumpFrequency = INTEGER O + 0 + # ASN.1: Integer Range, Single Value + # How often to dump this filesystem + 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 + + mountPassNo = INTEGER O + # ASN.1: Integer, Single Value + # Boot time mount pass number + +5.0 Representing SLP Service Advertisements in an LDAP DIT + + In addition to translating between SLP templates and LDAP schema, + another area requiring compatibility is the representation of SLP + service advertisements in an LDAP DIT. A standardized representation + for service information allows SLP DAs to store service + advertisements in LDAP, and for LDAP clients to query the DIT for + those services. Similarly, if LDAP clients represent service + information in the same form, SLP clients can benefit from + interoperability. + + A service advertisement contains the service URL in a 'labeledURI' + attribute [11]. The labeledURI attribute in a service advertisement + should only contain the service URL for the service, with no + additional label. It is recommended that the labeledURI be used as + the RDN for the service object in the DIT. + + Although service advertisements can appear anywhere within the DIT, + it is recommended that all services be stored under a single common + point, or root node, to facilitate searching in a domain. This allows + a client to search for all of advertisements of a particular service + type, say, for all printers. The recommended parent entry is one + named "ou=service" below the entry which is the representation of the + domain, as described in RFC 2247. + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 22] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + For example, a printer service with labeledURI of + "service:lpr://printsrv/queue1" in the domain foobar.com advertised + in the LDAP server that holds the entry "dc=foobar,dc=com" tree has + the following DN: + + "labeledURI=service:lpr://printsrv/queue1, ou=service, dc=foobar, + dc=com" + + While this leads to a flat space of service storage, since SLP uses + search filters from LDAP for searches, these filters can be used for + one-level searches from the root node. + + The following example illustrates how an advertisement having a + simple service type is represented. The advertisement (in conceptual + form) for a printer is: + + Service Type: service:lpr://printsrv/queue1 + Scopes: eng,corp + Attributes: + description = A general printer for all to use. + security-mechanisms-supported = none + Authentication: none + + The RDN of the object is labeledURI=service:lpr://printsrv/queue1, + and the following LDAP search filter will return this object, along + with any others of the service type "service:lpr" that match the + other attributes: + + (&(service-advert-service-type=service:lpr) + (service-advert-scopes=eng) + (service-advert-scopes=corp) + (description=A general printer for all to use.) + (security-mechanisms-supported=none)) + + Service advertisements in SLP also have a lease time associated with + them. In LDAP servers that support the extensions for dynamic + directory services [12], the service advertisement entry objectClass + should be extended with the dynamicObject class. This allows the + service advertisement to time out within the LDAP directory server. + If the LDAP directory server does not support the dynamic directory + services extension, then advertisement lease timeouts must be handled + by the SLP agent. + + While the service advertisement schema outlined in this section is + primarily for SLP DAs that use LDAP as a backing store, if LDAP + agents register services using the same format, complete + interoperability with SLP is achieved. + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 23] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + +6.0 Internationalization Considerations + + SLP specifies that an RFC 1766 [13] language code accompanies every + service advertisement. Language codes for service advertisements in + LDAP must be represented according to RFC 2596 [14]. + + RFC 2596 prohibits language codes in DNs, and specifies that a + directory server which does not support language codes must treat an + attribute with a language code as an unrecognized attributes. + According to RFC 2596, language codes are appended to attribute names + with a semicolon (";"). For example, the following attribute/value + pair is in the German locale: + + (address;lang-de=44 Bahnhofstrasse, 2365 Weibstadt, Deutschland) + + An attribute with a language tag in a specific locale is considered a + separate attribute from attributes in other locales. + + If the service advertisement is in the default SLP locale ("en", no + dialect), then the language code need not be appended to the + attribute name. + + SLP queries in locales other than the default need not be rewritten + to include language tags before being submitted to the directory + server. RFC 2596 specifies that all entries that match are returned, + including those with language tags, without requiring the language + tags to be explicitly present in the query. The SLP DA can then + postprocess the result to select the entries from the required + locale. + +7.0 Security Considerations + + SLP authenticators are stored with the service advertisement in the + DIT, as discussed in Section~7ef{slpdit}. LDAP clients need to use + LDAP authentication [15] to assure that they are connecting with a + secure server. In particular, SLP DAs that use LDAP as a back end + store and that implement SLP authentication MUST use LDAP + authentication to assure that the LDAP entries for their service + registrations are secure. + +Acknowledgements + + Many thanks are due to Mark Wahl whose detailed and insightful + comments were instrumental in helping improve the technical accuracy + of this document with respect to LDAP. + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 24] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + +8.0 References + + [1] Guttman, E., Perkins, C. and J. Kempf, "Service Templates and + service: Schemes", RFC 2609, April 1999. + + [2] Wahl, W., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access + Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. + + [3] International Telecommunications Union. The Directory:Selected + Attribute Types. ITU Recommendation X.520. August, 1997. + + [4] McLaughlin, L., "Line Printer Daemon Protocol, RFC 1179, August + 1990. + + [5] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service + Location Protocol Version 2", RFC 2608, April 1999. + + [6] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax + Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. + + [7] Howes, T., "The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters", + RFC 2254, December 1997. + + [8] Wahl, W., Coulbeck, A., Howe, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight + Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definition", + RFC 2252, December 1997. + + [9] ITU-T Rec. X.680. Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - + Specification of Basic Notation. 1994. + + [10] Fleming, P., Jones, K., Lewis, H., and McDonald, I., "Internet + Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services", Work + in Progress. + + [11] Smith, M., "Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an Object + Class to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 2079, + January 1997. + + [12] Yaacovi, Y., Wahl, M. and T. Genovese, "Lightweight Directory + Access Protocol (v3): Extensions for Dynamic Directory + Services", RFC 2589, May 1999. + + [13] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC + 1766, December 1997. + + [14] Wahl, M. and T. Howes, "Use of Language Codes in LDAP", RFC + 2596, May 1999. + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 25] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + + [15] Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, + "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000. + + [16] Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement + Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [17] Dubuisson, O. ASN.1: Communication between Heterogeneous + Systems. OSS Nokalva, 2000. + + [18] http://www.srvloc.org + +9.0 Authors' Addresses + + James Kempf + Sun Microsystems + 901 San Antonio Avenue + Palo Alto, CA 94303 + USA + + Phone: +1 650 786-5890 + EMail: james.kempf@sun.com + + + Ryan Moats + Coreon, Inc. + 15621 Drexel Circle + Omaha, NE, 68135 + USA + + EMail: rmoats@coreon.net + + + Pete St. Pierre + Sun Microsystems + 901 San Antonio Avenue + Palo Alto, CA 94303 + USA + + Phone: +1 415 786-5790 + EMail: Pete.StPierre@Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 26] + +RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 + + +10. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 27] +