From 022f805620a9653e81b4417fea056bc08b37df04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pierangelo Masarati Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:04:59 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] add (work in progress) --- doc/drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-session-xx.txt | 1120 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1120 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-session-xx.txt diff --git a/doc/drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-session-xx.txt b/doc/drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-session-xx.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ba1c7326d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-session-xx.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1120 @@ + + + +Network Working Group M. Wahl +Internet-Draft Informed Control Inc. +Intended status: Standards Track May 9, 2007 +Expires: November 10, 2007 + + + LDAP Session Tracking Control + draft-wahl-ldap-session-03 + +Status of this Memo + + 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 becomes + aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. + + 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." + + The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at + 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. + + This Internet-Draft will expire on November 10, 2007. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 1] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +Abstract + + Many network devices, application servers, and middleware components + of a enterprise software infrastructure generate some form of session + tracking identifiers, which are useful when analyzing activity and + accounting logs to group activity relating to a particular session. + This document discusses how Lightweight Directory Access Protocol + version 3 (LDAP) clients can include session tracking identifiers + with their LDAP requests. This information is provided through + controls in the requests the clients send to LDAP servers. The LDAP + server receiving these controls can include the session tracking + identifiers in the log messages it writes, enabling LDAP requests in + the LDAP server's logs to be correlated with activity in logs of + other components in the infrastructure. The control also enables + session tracking information to be generated by LDAP servers and + returned to clients and other servers. Three formats of session + tracking identifiers are defined in this document. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 2] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +1. Introduction + + The majority of directory server implementations produce access logs + detailing each request they receive. These logs can be read using + log parsing tools or specialized log viewer applications. Typically + it will be possible, for each request logged by a directory server, + to determine the bind DN (or possibly another form of authentication + identity) of the client which sent the request to the server, and + many servers also log the IP address of the client that sent the + request. + + In the original OSI architecture, it was envisaged that users might + interact with a directory service through specialized applications, + known as Directory User Agents, which were the clients of the + Directory Access Protocol. Similarly, in early Internet directory + deployments, a majority of LDAP clients were desktop applications, + that used the LDAP protocol to search an enterprise directory for + address book/contact information. + + Today, the majority of LDAP clients are embedded within middleware + and server applications. Legacy address book protocols might be + gatewayed into LDAP, or a server might consult an LDAP server in + order to check a user's password or obtain their preferences. While + the LDAP requests might result from a user's activity somewhere on + the network, it is rare for the user to be 'driving' the LDAP client, + and in most cases the user performing the activity is unaware that + LDAP requests are being generated on their behalf. + + However, this information is important to directory system + administrators and auditors. They may wish to determine who is + making use of the directory service, or track the source of unusual + requests. + + When a directory server administrator reviews a log file produced by + a directory server that has been accessed only by clients that are + themselves middleware, where the end user does not interact with the + middleware directly, only through other kinds of servers (e.g. + application servers or remote access servers), it will be difficult + to correlate between the directory server's log and the logs of the + servers which made use of this directory to determine why the LDAP + requests were made and who were responsible for causing them. + + Reasons for this include: + + o Directory servers are capable of performing many hundreds of + requests per second or more, and even with time synchronization + between the systems on which the directory server and middleware + are deployed, times of requests might not be logged accurately + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 3] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + + enough to be able to correlate based on time: the server's logs + might be only to 1-second resolution. + + o A single function on a middleware server, such as "authenticate a + user", may result in multiple LDAP requests being generated in + order to perform that request. + + o Many high performance middleware servers implement connection + pooling, managing a set of persistent connections to each + directory server and multiplexing operations across the + connections. Each connection will have the same source IP address + and bind DN. If a particular activity causes multiple LDAP + requests to be generated, each LDAP request might be sent on a + different connection. Also, as LDAP is an asynchronous protocol, + middleware servers may have more than one request in progress on + each connection, asynchronously sending requests to the directory + server on each connection and processing the responses in whatever + order they are received. + + This document defines a new control for use in LDAPv3 [1] operation + requests. This control contains session tracking information that + can be used to correlate log information present in the directory + server's log with the logs of other middleware servers. + + The words "MUST", "SHOULD" and "MAY" are used as defined in RFC 2119 + [2]. + +1.1. Motivation for session tracking + + A typical enterprise deployment with an application indirectly + relying upon the directory might resemble: + + + +------+ +--------+ +----------+ +--------+ + | User | | Appli- | | Auth./ | LDAP | LDAP | + | +-----+ cation +-------+ Identity +------+ Server | + | | | Server | | Provider | | | + | A | | B | | C | | D | + +------+ +--------+ +----------+ +--------+ + + + In this diagram, a user (A) makes some request of an application + server (B). The application server might rely on an integrated or + external authentication provider in order to check the user's + authentication credentials, or might use an identity provider to + obtain profile information about the user. This request might be + made through an API or a protocol other than LDAP, e.g. RADIUS, + Kerberos, SMB, etc. The authentication/identity provider (C) would + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 4] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + + generate one or more LDAP requests and send them to an LDAP server + (D). + + The LDAP server has the following information already available to it + through the LDAP protocol: the IP address and authentication + credentials of the authentication/identity provider (C). If the + provider has included the Proxy Authorization Control [11], then the + LDAP server might also receive the Distinguished Name or + authorization identity of either the user (A) or the application + server (B), depending on how the authentication/identity provider (C) + uses the directory. In order to obtain this distinguished name + however, the authentication/identity provider (C) might need to + perform one or more LDAP search or bind requests. If there is no + entry in the directory corresponding to the identity of the user (A) + or the application server (B), then there is no way in the base LDAP + specification or the Proxy Authorization Control for the + authentication/identity provider (C) to describe the user (A) or the + application server (B) to the LDAP server (D). + + If either the application server (B) or the authentication/identity + provider (C) have generated a session identifier for tracking the + interactions of the user (A) for a particular session, then it is + useful to include this information with the requests made to the + directory server, so that this session identifier will show up in the + directory server's logs. That is the purpose of the control defined + in the next section. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 5] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +2. Control definition + + There is currently no standard way of describing a session: there are + many different formats for a session identifier, and each application + that tracks sessions typically has its own semantics for what a + session means. Thus, a control is defined using an extensible model, + in order to incorporate many different application's concepts and + formats of a session tracking identifier. + + The value of the session identifier control encapsulates the + following four pieces of information: sessionSourceIp, + sessionSourceName, formatOID and sessionTrackingIdentifier. + + The sessionSourceIp field is a US-ASCII string encoding of an IPv4 or + IPv6 [3] address of the component of the system which has generated a + session tracking identifier. The purpose of this field is to enable + the directory server administrator, even if they do not have a log + parser that understands a particular session tracking identifier + format, to at least be able to identify the server that manages the + session. Note that there is no guarantee of IP-level connectivity + between the directory server and the system which generated the + tracking identifier, and if Network Address Translation is being + used, the IP address in this field might be from a private use + address range. + + The sessionSourceName field is a UTF-8 [4] encoded ISO 10646 [5] text + string. This field describes the component of the system which has + generated a session tracking identifier. The format of this field is + determined by the formatOID (discussed below); examples of contents + of a sessionSourceName field might be a hostname, a distinguished + name, or a web service address. This contents of this field is not + intended to identify an end user; instead it identifies the server + using a name other than the server's IP address. + + The formatOID is a US-ASCII encoded dotted decimal representation of + an OBJECT IDENTIFIER. The OBJECT IDENTIFIER indicates the scheme + that is used to generate the sessionSourceName and + sessionTrackingIdentifier fields. As there is currently no standard + scheme for session information, it is expected that there will be + many different formats carried within this control. The OBJECT + IDENTIFIERs for three formats are presented in this document. + + The sessionTrackingIdentifier field is a UTF-8 encoded ISO 10646 + string. The session identifier SHOULD be limited to whitespace and + printable characters; non-printing and control characters SHOULD NOT + be used, and byte sequences that are not legal UTF-8 MUST NOT be + used. The syntax of the session identifier and its semantics (e.g., + how values are compared for equality) are governed by the formatOID. + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 6] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + + For example, the session identifier might be a simple string encoding + of a decimal counter, a username, a timestamp, a fragment of XML, or + it might be something else, depending on the format. + +2.1. Formal definition + + This document defines a single LDAP control. + + The controlType is 1.3.6.1.4.1.21008.108.63.1, the criticality MUST + be either FALSE or absent, and the controlValue MUST be present. The + controlValue OCTET STRING is always present and contains the bytes of + the BER [6] encoding of a value of the ASN.1 data type + SessionIdentifierControlValue, defined as follows: + + LDAP-Session-Identifier-Control + DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::= + BEGIN + + LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded + LDAPOID ::= OCTET STRING -- Constrained to numericoid + + SessionIdentifierControlValue ::= SEQUENCE { + sessionSourceIp LDAPString, + sessionSourceName LDAPString, + formatOID LDAPOID, + sessionTrackingIdentifier LDAPString + } + + END + + The sessionSourceIp element SHOULD NOT be longer than 42 characters + (the length necessary for a string representation of an IPv6 + address), and MUST NOT be longer than 128 characters. Each character + will be encoded into a single byte. If the IP address of the system + which generated the session tracking identifier is not known, the + sessionSourceIp element SHOULD be of zero length. + + The sessionSourceName element SHOULD NOT be longer than 1024 + characters, and MUST NOT be longer than 65536 bytes. Note that in + the UTF-8 encoding a character MAY be encoded into more than one + byte. If no other addressing information about that system is known + or relevant to the format, the sessionSourceName element SHOULD be of + zero length. + + The formatOID element MUST contain only the US-ASCII encodings of the + ISO 10646 characters FULL STOP and DIGIT ZERO through DIGIT NINE + (0x2E, 0x30-0x39). The formatOID element MUST NOT be of zero length, + and SHOULD NOT be longer than 1024 characters. + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 7] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + + The sessionTrackingIdentifier field MAY be of zero length (although + this might not be useful). There is no upper bound on the + sessionTrackingIdentifier, but it is suggested that values SHOULD NOT + be longer than 65536 characters without prior agreement with the + directory server administrator. Note that in the UTF-8 encoding a + character MAY be encoded into more than one byte. + +2.2. Use in LDAP + + The control MAY be included in any LDAP operation. The control has + order-dependent semantics. + + A client might place the control on a message with a bindRequest, + searchRequest, modifyRequest, addRequest, delRequest, modDNRequest, + compareRequest or extendedReq. A client MAY include multiple + controls of this type in a single request. This enables the client + to incorporate multiple distinct session tracking identifiers with + different formats. + + When a network service is proxying or chaining LDAP, in which the + service receives an incoming LDAP request from a client and from this + generates one or more requests to other LDAP servers, the service + SHOULD include any controls of this type that it received from + clients in requests it generates, without modification. A service + MAY silently remove a control if that control would violate security + policy. If the service has its own session state identifier, it + SHOULD include the session identifier control it generates in the + Controls SEQUENCE after any session identifier controls received by + clients. (If there are multiple proxies involved, each will add + their own session state to the end of the controls list). + + A server might place the control on message with a bindResponse, + searchResDone, modifyResponse, addResponse, delResponse, + modDNResponse, compareResponse, extendedResp or intermediateResponse. + The server can include the control in the response regardless of + whether the client included a control in the request or not. (The + control in a response is unsolicited, and a client which does not + recognize the control or a session tracking format can safely ignore + the control, as discussed in the following section). A server MAY + include multiple controls of this type in a response. + +2.3. Extensibility considerations + + The following section of this document defines 3 possible formats, + and it is expected that applications MAY define their own formats to + represent session tracking identifiers already implemented. + + An application developer or server developer who wishes to transfer + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 8] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + + their implementation's format for session tracking identifier within + an LDAP control MUST choose a new, unique, OBJECT IDENTIFIER to + represent this format. + + The format determines the semantics of the sessionSourceName string, + and the sessionTrackingIdentifier string. + + In general, when an LDAP server that has session tracking logging + enabled receives one or more of these controls with a request, the + server SHOULD include all fields of all of the controls with the + logging information for the request. + + A LDAP server that supports third-party or extensible log parsing + tools SHOULD NOT reject or ignore a control if the formatOID value is + not recognized, as it is expected that applications may include + session tracking identifiers and want to make this information + available to log parsers for correlation purposes, even if the + directory server does not need to make any use of this information. + + However, if the LDAP server does not recognize the control, the + control is not properly formatted, or the LDAP client is not + authorized to use this control, the LDAP server SHOULD ignore the + control and process the request as if the control had not been + included. + + When an LDAP client receives a response that includes this control, + the behavior depends on the client implementation. Clients SHOULD + silently ignore controls with formats they do not recognize, and + process the response as if the control had not been included. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 9] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +3. Session tracking format definitions + + This section defines three session tracking formats that can be used + within the session tracking control: two for RADIUS accounting, and + one based on usernames. Other formats can be defined in other + documents. + +3.1. Formats for use with RADIUS accounting + + This section defines two possible session tracking formats, that can + be used in LDAP clients that are part of or used by RADIUS servers + [7]. + + With formatOID set to 1.3.6.1.4.1.21008.108.63.1.1 within the control + value, the sessionTrackingIdentifier SHOULD contain the value of the + Acct-Session-Id RADIUS attribute (type 44), as defined in RFC 2866 + [8]. (RFC 2866 section 5.5 states that the Acct-Session-Id SHOULD + contain UTF-8 encoded ISO 10646 characters.) + + With formatOID set to 1.3.6.1.4.1.21008.108.63.1.2 within the control + value, the sessionTrackingIdentifier SHOULD contain the value of the + Acct-Multi-Session-Id RADIUS attribute (type 50), as defined in RFC + 2866 [8]. (RFC 2866 section 5.11 states that the + Acct-Multi-Session-Id SHOULD contain UTF-8 encoded ISO 10646 + characters.) + + In both of these two formats, the value of the sessionSourceIp field + SHOULD contain either a string encoding value of the IPv4 address + from the NAS-IP-Address RADIUS attribute (type 4), or a string + encoding of the IPv6 address from the value of the NAS-IPv6-Address + RADIUS attribute (type 95) as defined in RFC 3162 [9]. The value of + the sessionSourceName field SHOULD contain a string encoding the + value of the NAS-Identifier RADIUS attribute (type 32), if present, + or be of zero length if the NAS-Identifier RADIUS attribute was not + provided or was not in a recognized format. + +3.2. Format for username accounting + + This section defines another possible session tracking format that + can be used in LDAP clients that are part of applications which + identify users with simple string usernames. + + With formatOID set to 1.3.6.1.4.1.21008.108.63.1.3 within the control + value, the sessionTrackingIdentifier SHOULD contain a username that + has already been authenticated by the application that is generating + the session. This format SHOULD NOT be used for purported names, + where the application has not verified that the username is valid. + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 10] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + + The sessionSourceName field SHOULD contain the hostname where that + application is running, or be of zero length if the hostname is not + known. + + The username SHOULD be a SASL authorization identity string, as + described in section 3.4.1 of RFC 4422 [10]. It is expected that + these usernames are not globally unique, but are only unique within + the context of a particular application or particular enterprise. A + username need not be a distinguished name, and an implementation + receiving a control in this format MUST NOT assume that the contents + of the sessionTrackingIdentifier can be parsed as a distinguished + name. + + A control with this format differs from the Proxied Authorization + Control as defined in RFC 4370 [11], as the presence of this session + identifier control on a request SHOULD NOT influence the directory + server's access control decision of whether or how to perform that + request. + + Note that this format does not provide any information to + differentiate between multiple sessions or periods of interaction by + the same user. It is primarily intended for deployments which merely + need to be able to tie each directory operation to they identity of + the user whose activities caused the operation request to be + generated, even if the user might not even be represented in the + directory where the operations are being performed. + +3.2.1. Example + + For example, if an application server "app.example.com" with IPv4 + address "192.0.2.1" had authenticated an user with name "bloggs", and + then sent a search request to the LDAP directory in order to obtain + some public information on service configuration intending to provide + it to that user, the application might include a session identifier + control. The SessionIdentifierControlValue would have the following + ASN.1 value prior to encoding: + + + { -- SEQUENCE + "192.0.2.1", -- sessionSourceIp + "app.example.com", -- sessionSourceName + "1.3.6.1.4.1.21008.108.63.1.3", -- formatOID + "bloggs" -- sessionTrackingIdentifier + } + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 11] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + + The session identifier control would be sent with controlType + 1.3.6.1.4.1.21008.108.63.1, criticality FALSE, and the controlValue + the BER encoding of the SessionIdentifierControlValue. The control + included with the LDAP request would resemble: + + + { -- SEQUENCE + "1.3.6.1.4.1.21008.108.63.1", -- controlType + FALSE, -- criticality + '304204093139322e302e322e31040f6170702e6578616d706c652e636f6d + 041c312e332e362e312e342e312e32313030382e3130382e36332e312e33 + 0406626c6f676773'H -- controlValue + } + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 12] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +4. Security Considerations + + The session identifier controls used in this document are not + intended as a security control or proxy authentication mechanism, and + SHOULD NOT be used within a directory server to influence the + operation processing behavior. + + Malicious clients might attempt to provide false or misleading + information in directory server logs through the use of this control. + LDAP servers SHOULD implement access checks which limit whether + session identifier information provided by a client is logged. LDAP + servers which implement this control SHOULD permit the administrator + of the directory server to configure that this control is ignored + unless the request containing the control was received from a client + that been authenticated. LDAP servers which implement this control + SHOULD permit the administrator of the directory server to configure + that this control is ignored unless the client is authorized to use + this or related controls, such as the Proxied Authorization Control + [11]. Session identifier information from clients which do not meet + the server's access check requirement SHOULD be silently discarded. + + In some formats, session tracking identifiers may contain personal- + identifiable information, such as usernames or client IP addresses. + Unless data link, network or transport level encryption is being + used, this information might be visible to attackers monitoring the + network segments across which this information is being transmitted. + Implementations of LDAP clients which include this control in + requests sent to directory servers SHOULD support the use of + underlying security services that establish connection + confidentiality before the control is sent, such as a SASL mechanism + that negotiates a security layer, or the Start TLS operation. + + Correlation of activities across multiple servers can enable + administrators and monitoring tools to construct a more accurate + picture of user behavior. In particular, this tracking control could + be used to determine the set of applications and services with which + a particular user has had interactions. Thus, this control would not + be appropriate to deployments intending to anonymize directory + requests. Session formats containing personal identifiable + information SHOULD NOT be used between systems in different + organizations where there is no existing agreement between those + organizations on privacy protection. + + A value of the session tracking control might contain internal IP + addresses, hostnames and other identifiers that reveal the structure + of an enterprise network. A network service that generates its own + sessions SHOULD NOT send a session tracking control to a directory + server that is under different administration or in a different + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 13] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + + security enclave from itself. A network service that is an LDAP + client and also either receives requests over another protocol that + contains session tracking identifiers or is proxying incoming LDAP + requests SHOULD NOT forward received session tracking identifiers to + a directory server that is under different administration or in a + different security enclave from itself. A packet inspecting firewall + that permits outgoing LDAP requests from an enterprise network SHOULD + silently remove any session tracking controls from requests that are + being sent to directory servers outside of the enterprise network for + which there is not a preexisting policy configured to allow the + session tracking control to be sent to that directory server. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 14] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +5. IANA Considerations + + This control will be registered as follows: + + Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration + + Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.21008.108.63.1 + + Description: Session Tracking Identifier + + Person & email address to contact for further information: + Mark Wahl + + Usage: Control + + Specification: (I-D) RFC XXXX + + Author/Change Controller: Mark Wahl + + + The OBJECT IDENTIFIER for particular session identifier formats + defined for other applications need not be registered with IANA. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 15] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +6. Acknowledgments + + This control was inspired by conversations with Greg Lavender. Neil + Wilson provided useful feedback on this document. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 16] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +7. References + +7.1. Normative References + + [1] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): + Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510, June 2006. + + [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement + Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. + + [3] Hinden, R., "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 1884, + January 1996. + + [4] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", + RFC 3629, November 2003. + + [5] "Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) - + Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1: + 1993". + + [6] "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.". + + [7] Rigney, C., "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service + (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000. + + [8] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000. + + [9] Aboba, B., "RADIUS and IPv6", RFC 3162, August 2001. + + [10] Melnikov, A., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer + (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006. + +7.2. Informative References + + [11] Weltman, R., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) + Proxied Authorization Control", RFC 4370, February 2006. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 17] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +Appendix A. Copyright + + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the + rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as + set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This + document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS + IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR + IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET + ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, + INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE + INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 18] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +Author's Address + + Mark Wahl + Informed Control Inc. + PO Box 90626 + Austin, TX 78709 + US + + Email: mark.wahl@informed-control.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 19] + +Internet-Draft LDAP Session Tracking Control May 2007 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND + THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS + OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF + THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + + +Acknowledgment + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF + Administrative Support Activity (IASA). + + + + + +Wahl Expires November 10, 2007 [Page 20] + -- 2.39.5