| Rfc | 4522 |
|---|
| Title | Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): The Binary Encoding
Option |
|---|
| Author | S. Legg |
|---|
| Date | June 2006 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED
STANDARD |
|---|
|
Network Working Group S. Legg
Request for Comments: 4522 eB2Bcom
Category: Standards Track June 2006
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
The Binary Encoding Option
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Each attribute stored in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) directory has a defined syntax (i.e., data type). A syntax
definition specifies how attribute values conforming to the syntax
are normally represented when transferred in LDAP operations. This
representation is referred to as the LDAP-specific encoding to
distinguish it from other methods of encoding attribute values. This
document defines an attribute option, the binary option, that can be
used to specify that the associated attribute values are instead
encoded according to the Basic Encoding Rules (BER) used by X.500
directories.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Conventions .....................................................2
3. The Binary Option ...............................................2
4. Syntaxes Requiring Binary Transfer ..............................3
5. Attributes Returned in a Search .................................4
6. All User Attributes .............................................4
7. Conflicting Requests ............................................5
8. Security Considerations .........................................5
9. IANA Considerations .............................................5
10. References .....................................................5
10.1. Normative References ......................................5
10.2. Informative References ....................................6
1. Introduction
Each attribute stored in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) directory [RFC4510] has a defined syntax (i.e., data type)
which constrains the structure and format of its values.
The description of each syntax [RFC4517] specifies how attribute or
assertion values [RFC4512] conforming to the syntax are normally
represented when transferred in LDAP operations [RFC4511]. This
representation is referred to as the LDAP-specific encoding to
distinguish it from other methods of encoding attribute values.
This document defines an attribute option, the binary option, which
can be used in an attribute description [RFC4512] in an LDAP
operation to specify that the associated attribute values or
assertion values are, or are requested to be, encoded according to
the Basic Encoding Rules (BER) [BER] as used by X.500 [X.500]
directories, instead of the usual LDAP-specific encoding.
The binary option was originally defined in RFC 2251 [RFC2251]. The
LDAP technical specification [RFC4510] has obsoleted the previously
defined LDAP technical specification [RFC3377], which included RFC
2251. The binary option was not included in the revised LDAP
technical specification for a variety of reasons including
implementation inconsistencies. No attempt is made here to resolve
the known inconsistencies.
This document reintroduces the binary option for use with certain
attribute syntaxes, such as certificate syntax [RFC4523], that
specifically require it. No attempt has been made to address use of
the binary option with attributes of syntaxes that do not require its
use. Unless addressed in a future specification, this use is to be
avoided.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[BCP14].
3. The Binary Option
The binary option is indicated with the attribute option string
"binary" in an attribute description. Note that, like all attribute
options, the string representing the binary option is case
insensitive.
Where the binary option is present in an attribute description, the
associated attribute values or assertion values MUST be BER encoded
(otherwise the values are encoded according to the LDAP-specific
encoding [RFC4517] for the attribute's syntax). Note that it is
possible for a syntax to be defined such that its LDAP-specific
encoding is exactly the same as its BER encoding.
In terms of the protocol [RFC4511], the binary option specifies that
the contents octets of the associated AttributeValue or
AssertionValue OCTET STRING are a complete BER encoding of the
relevant value.
The binary option is not a tagging option [RFC4512], so the presence
of the binary option does not specify an attribute subtype. An
attribute description containing the binary option references exactly
the same attribute as the attribute description without the binary
option. The supertype/subtype relationships of attributes with
tagging options are not altered in any way by the presence or absence
of the binary option.
An attribute description SHALL be treated as unrecognized if it
contains the binary option and the syntax of the attribute does not
have an associated ASN.1 type [RFC4517], or the BER encoding of
values of that type is not supported.
The presence or absence of the binary option only affects the
transfer of attribute and assertion values in the protocol; servers
store any particular attribute value in a format of their choosing.
4. Syntaxes Requiring Binary Transfer
The attribute values of certain attribute syntaxes are defined
without an LDAP-specific encoding and are required to be transferred
in the BER-encoded form. For the purposes of this document, these
syntaxes are said to have a binary transfer requirement. The
certificate, certificate list, certificate pair, and supported
algorithm syntaxes [RFC4523] are examples of syntaxes with a binary
transfer requirement. These syntaxes also have an additional
requirement that the exact BER encoding must be preserved. Note that
this is a property of the syntaxes themselves, and not a property of
the binary option. In the absence of this requirement, LDAP clients
would need to re-encode values using the Distinguished Encoding Rules
(DER).
5. Attributes Returned in a Search
An LDAP search request [RFC4511] contains a list of the attributes
(the requested attributes list) to be returned from each entry
matching the search filter. An attribute description in the
requested attributes list also implicitly requests all subtypes of
the attribute type in the attribute description, whether through
attribute subtyping or attribute tagging option subtyping [RFC4512].
The requested attributes list MAY contain attribute descriptions with
the binary option, but MUST NOT contain two attribute descriptions
with the same attribute type and the same tagging options (even if
only one of them has the binary option). The binary option in an
attribute description in the requested attributes list implicitly
applies to all the subtypes of the attribute type in the attribute
description (however, see Section 7).
Attributes of a syntax with the binary transfer requirement, if
returned, SHALL be returned in the binary form (i.e., with the binary
option in the attribute description and the associated attribute
values BER encoded) regardless of whether the binary option was
present in the request (for the attribute or for one of its
supertypes).
Attributes of a syntax without the binary transfer requirement, if
returned, SHOULD be returned in the form explicitly requested. That
is, if the attribute description in the requested attributes list
contains the binary option, then the corresponding attribute in the
result SHOULD be in the binary form. If the attribute description in
the request does not contain the binary option, then the
corresponding attribute in the result SHOULD NOT be in the binary
form. A server MAY omit an attribute from the result if it does not
support the requested encoding.
Regardless of the encoding chosen, a particular attribute value is
returned at most once.
6. All User Attributes
If the list of attributes in a search request is empty or contains
the special attribute description string "*", then all user
attributes are requested to be returned.
Attributes of a syntax with the binary transfer requirement, if
returned, SHALL be returned in the binary form.
Attributes of a syntax without the binary transfer requirement and
having a defined LDAP-specific encoding SHOULD NOT be returned in the
binary form.
Attributes of a syntax without the binary transfer requirement and
without a defined LDAP-specific encoding may be returned in the
binary form or omitted from the result.
7. Conflicting Requests
A particular attribute could be explicitly requested by an attribute
description and/or implicitly requested by the attribute descriptions
of one or more of its supertypes, or by the special attribute
description string "*". If the binary option is present in at least
one, but not all, of these attribute descriptions then the effect of
the request with respect to binary transfer is implementation
defined.
8. Security Considerations
When interpreting security-sensitive fields, and in particular fields
used to grant or deny access, implementations MUST ensure that any
matching rule comparisons are done on the underlying abstract value,
regardless of the particular encoding used.
9. IANA Considerations
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has updated the LDAP
attribute description option registry [BCP64] as indicated by the
following template:
Subject:
Request for LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
Option Name: binary
Family of Options: NO
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Steven Legg <steven.legg@eb2bcom.com>
Specification: RFC 4522
Author/Change Controller: IESG
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[BCP64] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006.
[RFC4510] Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC RFC 4510,
June 2006.
[RFC4511] Sermersheim, J., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.
[RFC4512] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Directory Information Models", RFC 4512, June
2006.
[RFC4517] Legg, S., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules", RFC 4517, June
2006.
[RFC4523] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) Schema Definitions for X.509 Certificates", RFC
4523, June 2006.
[BER] ITU-T Recommendation X.690 (07/02) | ISO/IEC 8825-1,
Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
(DER).
10.2. Informative References
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
[RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
September 2002.
[X.500] ITU-T Recommendation X.500 (02/01) | ISO/IEC 9594-1:2001,
Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
The Directory: Overview of concepts, models and services
Author's Address
Dr. Steven Legg
eB2Bcom
Suite 3, Woodhouse Corporate Centre
935 Station Street
Box Hill North, Victoria 3129
AUSTRALIA
Phone: +61 3 9896 7830
Fax: +61 3 9896 7801
EMail: steven.legg@eb2bcom.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).