mirror of
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap.git
synced 2024-12-21 03:10:25 +08:00
464 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
464 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
Network Working Group M. Smith, Editor
|
|||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT G. Good
|
|||
|
Intended Category: Informational R. Weltman
|
|||
|
Expires: September 2000 Netscape Communications Corp.
|
|||
|
T. Howes
|
|||
|
Loudcloud, Inc.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7 March 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Persistent Search: A Simple LDAP Change Notification Mechanism
|
|||
|
<draft-ietf-ldapext-psearch-02.txt>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Status of this Memo
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
|
|||
|
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working docu-
|
|||
|
ments 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 draft document will be submitted to the RFC Editor as an Informa-
|
|||
|
tional document. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical dis-
|
|||
|
cussion of this document will take place on the IETF LDAP Extension
|
|||
|
Working Group mailing list <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>. Please send
|
|||
|
editorial comments directly to the editor <mcs@netscape.com>.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997-2000). All Rights Reserved.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Please see the Copyright section near the end of this document for more
|
|||
|
information.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Smith, et. al. Intended Category: Informational [Page 1]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAP Persistent Search 7 March 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Abstract
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document defines two controls that extend the LDAPv3 [LDAP] search
|
|||
|
operation to provide a simple mechanism by which an LDAP client can
|
|||
|
receive notification of changes that occur in an LDAP server. The
|
|||
|
mechanism is designed to be very flexible yet easy for clients and
|
|||
|
servers to implement. Since the IETF is likely to pursue a different,
|
|||
|
more comprehensive solution in this area, this document will eventually
|
|||
|
be published with Informational status in order to document an existing
|
|||
|
practice.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
|
|||
|
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are
|
|||
|
to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. General Approach
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The approach taken by the Persistent Search mechanism described in this
|
|||
|
document is to alter the standard LDAP search operation so that it does
|
|||
|
not end after the initial set of entries matching the search criteria
|
|||
|
are returned. Instead, LDAP servers keep the search operation going.
|
|||
|
This provides clients and servers participating in Persistent Search
|
|||
|
with an active channel through which entries that change (and additional
|
|||
|
information about the changes that occur) can be communicated.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. Persistent Search Control
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This control may be included in the Controls portion of an LDAPv3 Sear-
|
|||
|
chRequest message. The controlType is "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.3".
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
PersistentSearch ::= SEQUENCE {
|
|||
|
changeTypes INTEGER,
|
|||
|
changesOnly BOOLEAN,
|
|||
|
returnECs BOOLEAN
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Upon receiving this control, a server that supports it MUST process this
|
|||
|
as a standard LDAPv3 search with the following exceptions:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
a) If changesOnly is TRUE, the server MUST NOT return any existing
|
|||
|
entries that match the search criteria. Entries are only
|
|||
|
returned when they are changed (added, modified, deleted, or
|
|||
|
subject to a modifyDN operation).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Smith, et. al. Intended Category: Informational [Page 2]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAP Persistent Search 7 March 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
b) The server MUST NOT return a SearchResult message. Instead, the
|
|||
|
search operation MUST be kept active until it is abandoned by
|
|||
|
the client or until the client unbinds.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
c) As changes are made to the server, the effected entries MUST be
|
|||
|
returned to the client if they match the standard search cri-
|
|||
|
teria and if the operation that caused the change is included in
|
|||
|
the changeTypes field. The changeTypes field is the logical OR
|
|||
|
of one or more of these values: add (1), delete (2), modify (4),
|
|||
|
modDN (8).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
d) If returnECs is TRUE, the server MUST return an Entry Change
|
|||
|
Notification control with each entry returned as the result of
|
|||
|
changes. This control is described in the next section.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. Entry Change Notification Control
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This control provides additional information about the change the caused
|
|||
|
a particular entry to be returned as the result of a persistent search.
|
|||
|
The controlType is "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.7". If the client set the
|
|||
|
returnECs boolean to TRUE in the PersistentSearch control, servers MUST
|
|||
|
include an EntryChangeNotification control in the Controls portion of
|
|||
|
each SearchResultEntry that is returned due to an entry being added,
|
|||
|
deleted, or modified.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
EntryChangeNotification ::= SEQUENCE {
|
|||
|
changeType ENUMERATED {
|
|||
|
add (1),
|
|||
|
delete (2),
|
|||
|
modify (4),
|
|||
|
modDN (8)
|
|||
|
},
|
|||
|
previousDN LDAPDN OPTIONAL, -- modifyDN ops. only
|
|||
|
changeNumber INTEGER OPTIONAL -- if supported
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
changeType indicates what LDAP operation caused the entry to be
|
|||
|
returned.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
previousDN is present only for modifyDN operations and gives the DN of
|
|||
|
the entry before it was renamed and/or moved. Servers MUST include this
|
|||
|
optional field only when returning change notifications as a result of
|
|||
|
modifyDN operations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Smith, et. al. Intended Category: Informational [Page 3]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAP Persistent Search 7 March 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
changeNumber is the change number [CHANGELOG] assigned by a server for
|
|||
|
the change. If a server supports an LDAP Change Log it SHOULD include
|
|||
|
this field.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6. Intended Use
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some of the scenarios that the Persistent Search mechanism described in
|
|||
|
this document is designed to support are described in this section.
|
|||
|
Other uses of the mechanism are possible as well, but please refer to
|
|||
|
the "Implementation Considerations" section for some issues to consider.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.1. Cache Consistency
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An LDAP client application with high performance needs may want to main-
|
|||
|
tain a temporary, local cache of information obtained through LDAP
|
|||
|
search, compare, or bind operations. To improve performance, the local
|
|||
|
cache is always consulted before sending a request to an LDAP server.
|
|||
|
The client application can use Persistent Search(es) against the change-
|
|||
|
log [CHANGELOG] (if one is available) or against one or more subtrees
|
|||
|
within the LDAP server to enable it to maintain consistency between the
|
|||
|
data in its local cache and the data stored in the LDAP server. A Per-
|
|||
|
sistent Search request where the changesOnly flag is FALSE can be used
|
|||
|
if it is desirable to prime the cache; otherwise changesOnly would typi-
|
|||
|
cally be set to TRUE in the request.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Caches are used for reasons other than performance improvement as well.
|
|||
|
In some cases, they arise naturally out of a particular application's
|
|||
|
design. For example, an LDAP client designed for administration of
|
|||
|
information held in LDAP servers will undoubtedly generate screen
|
|||
|
displays that show information gleaned from an LDAP server. The screen
|
|||
|
display is a cache that is active and visible until the user of the
|
|||
|
application takes some action that causes different information to be
|
|||
|
displayed. A refresh button or similar control may be provided to the
|
|||
|
user to allow them to update the cached display. A Persistent Search
|
|||
|
request can be used instead by the administrative application to
|
|||
|
automatically refresh the screen display as soon as the underlying LDAP
|
|||
|
information changes.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2. Synchronization
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some LDAP clients such as those that execute on a portable computer may
|
|||
|
maintain a partial or complete offline copy of the entries stored in an
|
|||
|
LDAP server. While connected to the network, such a client can direct
|
|||
|
all queries to the copy of data it holds and use a Persistent Search to
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Smith, et. al. Intended Category: Informational [Page 4]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAP Persistent Search 7 March 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
actively maintain the contents of the offline copy (alternatively, the
|
|||
|
client could direct requests to the LDAP server that is the source of
|
|||
|
the data). While disconnected from the network, the client must satisfy
|
|||
|
all queries using its offline copy of the data. When the client recon-
|
|||
|
nects to the network, it can synchronize its own copy of the data with
|
|||
|
the one stored on the LDAP server and proceed to actively maintain its
|
|||
|
offline copy by issuing a Persistent Search with the changesOnly flag
|
|||
|
set to FALSE against the server's changelog [CHANGELOG]. A search
|
|||
|
filter like "(changeNumber>=NUM)" where NUM is an integer one greater
|
|||
|
than the last change the client processed would be used to limit the
|
|||
|
entries returned to the set of changes the client has not yet seen.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.3. Triggered Actions
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An LDAP client application may want to take some action when an entry in
|
|||
|
the directory is changed. A Persistent Search request can be used to
|
|||
|
proactively monitor one or more LDAP servers for interesting changes
|
|||
|
that in turn cause specific actions to be taken by an application. For
|
|||
|
example, an electronic mail repository may want to perform a "create
|
|||
|
mailbox" task when a new person entry is added to an LDAP directory and
|
|||
|
a "delete mailbox" task when a person entry is deleted from an LDAP
|
|||
|
directory.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7. Implementation Considerations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Implementors of servers that support the mechanism described in this
|
|||
|
document should ensure that their implementation scales well as the
|
|||
|
number of active Persistent Search requests increases and as the number
|
|||
|
of changes made in the directory increases.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Each active Persistent Search request requires that an open TCP connec-
|
|||
|
tion be maintained between an LDAP client and an LDAP server that might
|
|||
|
not otherwise be kept open. Therefore, client implementors are
|
|||
|
encouraged to avoid using Persistent Search for non-essential tasks and
|
|||
|
to close idle LDAP connections as soon as practical. Server implemen-
|
|||
|
tors are encouraged to support a large number of client connections if
|
|||
|
they need to support large numbers of Persistent Search clients.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This specification makes no guarantees about how soon a server should
|
|||
|
send notification of a changed entry to a Persistent Search client.
|
|||
|
This is intentional as any specific maximum delay would be impossible to
|
|||
|
meet in a distributed directory service implementation. Server imple-
|
|||
|
mentors are encouraged to minimize the delay before sending notifica-
|
|||
|
tions to ensure that clients' needs for timeliness of change
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Smith, et. al. Intended Category: Informational [Page 5]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAP Persistent Search 7 March 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
notification are met.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
8. Security Considerations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In some situations, it may be important to prevent general exposure of
|
|||
|
information about changes that occur in an LDAP server. Therefore,
|
|||
|
servers that implement the mechanism described in this document SHOULD
|
|||
|
provide a means to enforce access control on the entries returned and
|
|||
|
MAY also provide specific access control mechanisms to control the use
|
|||
|
of the PersistentSearch and EntryChangeNotification controls.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As with normal LDAP search requests, a malicious client can initiate a
|
|||
|
large number of Persistent Search requests in an attempt to consume all
|
|||
|
available server resources and deny service to legitimate clients. For
|
|||
|
this reason, servers that implement the mechanism described in the docu-
|
|||
|
ment SHOULD provide a means to limit the number of resources that can be
|
|||
|
consumed by a single client.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
9. Copyright
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997-2000). All Rights Reserved.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to oth-
|
|||
|
ers, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
|
|||
|
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and dis-
|
|||
|
tributed, 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 Stan-
|
|||
|
dards 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
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Smith, et. al. Intended Category: Informational [Page 6]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAP Persistent Search 7 March 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
10. Bibliography
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[KEYWORDS] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Require-
|
|||
|
ment Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[LDAP] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
|
|||
|
Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[CHANGELOG] G. Good, "Definition of an Object Class to Hold LDAP Change
|
|||
|
Record", INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-ietf-asid-changelog-01.txt>,
|
|||
|
July 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[PSEARCHAPI] M. Smith, "LDAP C API Extensions for Persistent Search",
|
|||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-ietf-ldapext-c-api-psearch-00.txt>,
|
|||
|
March 1998.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
11. Authors' Addresses
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Smith
|
|||
|
Netscape Communications Corp.
|
|||
|
501 E. Middlefield Rd., Mailstop MV068
|
|||
|
Mountain View, CA 94043
|
|||
|
USA
|
|||
|
+1 650 937-3477
|
|||
|
mcs@netscape.com
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Gordon Good
|
|||
|
Netscape Communications Corp.
|
|||
|
501 E. Middlefield Rd., Mailstop MV068
|
|||
|
Mountain View, CA 94043
|
|||
|
USA
|
|||
|
+1 650 937-3825
|
|||
|
ggood@netscape.com
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rob Weltman
|
|||
|
Netscape Communications Corp.
|
|||
|
501 E. Middlefield Rd., Mailstop MV068
|
|||
|
Mountain View, CA 94043
|
|||
|
USA
|
|||
|
+1 650 937-3301
|
|||
|
rweltman@netscape.com
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Smith, et. al. Intended Category: Informational [Page 7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAP Persistent Search 7 March 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tim Howes
|
|||
|
Loudcloud, Inc.
|
|||
|
615 Tasman Dr.
|
|||
|
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
|
|||
|
USA
|
|||
|
+1 650 321 4565
|
|||
|
howes@loudcloud.com
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
12. Appendix A: Changes since draft-ietf-ldapext-psearch-01.txt
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Status of this Memo" section: changed "Intended Category" to Infor-
|
|||
|
mational. Also updated boilerplate text to reflect current I-D
|
|||
|
guidelines and updated copyright to include the year "2000."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Abstract" section: added sentence that says why this will be pub-
|
|||
|
lished as Informational.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Entry Change Notification Control" section: added the word "only" to
|
|||
|
clarify that the previousDN field is only returned for modifyDN
|
|||
|
operations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Authors' Addresses" section: updated Tim Howes' information.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Smith, et. al. Intended Category: Informational [Page 8]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Status of this Memo............................................1
|
|||
|
2. Abstract.......................................................2
|
|||
|
3. General Approach...............................................2
|
|||
|
4. Persistent Search Control......................................2
|
|||
|
5. Entry Change Notification Control..............................3
|
|||
|
6. Intended Use...................................................4
|
|||
|
6.1. Cache Consistency...........................................4
|
|||
|
6.2. Synchronization.............................................4
|
|||
|
6.3. Triggered Actions...........................................5
|
|||
|
7. Implementation Considerations..................................5
|
|||
|
8. Security Considerations........................................6
|
|||
|
9. Copyright......................................................6
|
|||
|
10. Bibliography...................................................7
|
|||
|
11. Authors' Addresses.............................................7
|
|||
|
12. Appendix A: Changes since draft-ietf-ldapext-psearch-01.txt...8
|