mirror/openldap
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap.git synced 2025-01-18 11:05:48 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

new RFCs

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Kurt Zeilenga 2004-08-28 15:50:21 +00:00
parent 429be3c137
commit 5cf77e2d31
2 changed files with 1182 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

339
doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
Network Working Group R. Weltman
Request for Comments: 3829 America Online
Category: Informational M. Smith
Pearl Crescent, LLC
M. Wahl
July 2004
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Authorization Identity Request and Response Controls
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 (2004).
Abstract
This document extends the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) bind operation with a mechanism for requesting and returning
the authorization identity it establishes. Specifically, this
document defines the Authorization Identity Request and Response
controls for use with the Bind operation.
1. Introduction
This document defines support for the Authorization Identity Request
Control and the Authorization Identity Response Control for
requesting and returning the authorization established in a bind
operation. The Authorization Identity Request Control may be
submitted by a client in a bind request if authenticating with
version 3 of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
protocol [LDAPv3]. In the LDAP server's bind response, it may then
include an Authorization Identity Response Control. The response
control contains the identity assumed by the client. This is useful
when there is a mapping step or other indirection during the bind, so
that the client can be told what LDAP identity was granted. Client
authentication with certificates is the primary situation where this
applies. Also, some Simple Authentication and Security Layer [SASL]
authentication mechanisms may not involve the client explicitly
providing a DN, or may result in an authorization identity which is
different from the authentication identity provided by the client
[AUTH].
Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
used in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFCKeyWords].
2. Publishing support for the Authorization Identity Request Control
and the Authorization Identity Response Control
Support for the Authorization Identity Request Control and the
Authorization Identity Response Control is indicated by the presence
of the Object Identifiers (OIDs) 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16 and
2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15, respectively, in the supportedControl
attribute [LDAPATTRS] of a server's root DSA-specific Entry (DSE).
3. Authorization Identity Request Control
This control MAY be included in any bind request which specifies
protocol version 3, as part of the controls field of the LDAPMessage
as defined in [LDAPPROT]. In a multi-step bind operation, the client
MUST provide the control with each bind request.
The controlType is "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16" and the controlValue is
absent.
4. Authorization Identity Response Control
This control MAY be included in any final bind response where the
first bind request of the bind operation included an Authorization
Identity Request Control as part of the controls field of the
LDAPMessage as defined in [LDAPPROT].
The controlType is "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15". If the bind request
succeeded and resulted in an identity (not anonymous), the
controlValue contains the authorization identity (authzId), as
defined in [AUTH] section 9, granted to the requestor. If the bind
request resulted in an anonymous association, the controlValue field
is a string of zero length. If the bind request resulted in more
than one authzId, the primary authzId is returned in the controlValue
field.
The control is only included in a bind response if the resultCode for
the bind operation is success.
If the server requires confidentiality protections to be in place
prior to use of this control (see Security Considerations), the
server reports failure to have adequate confidentiality protections
in place by returning the confidentialityRequired result code.
Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
If the client has insufficient access rights to the requested
authorization information, the server reports this by returning the
insufficientAccessRights result code.
Identities presented by a client as part of the authentication
process may be mapped by the server to one or more authorization
identities. The bind response control can be used to retrieve the
primary authzId.
For example, during client authentication with certificates [AUTH], a
client may possess more than one certificate and may not be able to
determine which one was ultimately selected for authentication to the
server. The subject DN field in the selected certificate may not
correspond exactly to a DN in the directory, but rather have gone
through a mapping process controlled by the server. Upon completing
the certificate-based authentication, the client may issue a SASL
[SASL] bind request, specifying the EXTERNAL mechanism and including
an Authorization Identity Request Control. The bind response MAY
include an Authorization Identity Response Control indicating the DN
in the server's Directory Information Tree (DIT) which the
certificate was mapped to.
5. Alternative Approach with Extended Operation
The LDAP "Who am I?" [AUTHZID] extended operation provides a
mechanism to query the authorization identity associated with a bound
connection. Using an extended operation, as opposed to a bind
response control, allows a client to learn the authorization identity
after the bind has established integrity and data confidentiality
protections. The disadvantages of the extended operation approach
are coordination issues between "Who am I?" requests, bind requests,
and other requests, and that an extra operation is required to learn
the authorization identity. For multithreaded or high bandwidth
server application environments, the bind response approach may be
preferable.
6. Security Considerations
The Authorization Identity Request and Response Controls are subject
to standard LDAP security considerations. The controls may be passed
over a secure as well as over an insecure channel. They are not
protected by security layers negotiated by the bind operation.
The response control allows for an additional authorization identity
to be passed. In some deployments, these identities may contain
confidential information which require privacy protection. In such
deployments, a security layer should be established prior to issuing
a bind request with an Authorization Identity Request Control.
Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
7. IANA Considerations
The OIDs 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16 and 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15 are
reserved for the Authorization Identity Request and Response
Controls, respectively. The Authorization Identity Request Control
has been registered as an LDAP Protocol Mechanism [IANALDAP].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[LDAPv3] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
September 2002.
[LDAPPROT] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December
1997.
[RFCKeyWords] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[AUTH] Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J. and R. Morgan,
"Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000.
[SASL] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer
(SASL)", RFC 2222, October 1997.
[LDAPATTRS] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille,
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute
Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.
[IANALDAP] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
September 2002.
8.2. Informative References
[AUTHZID] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP 'Who am I?' Operation", Work in
Progress, April 2002.
Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
9. Author's Addresses
Rob Weltman
America Online
360 W. Caribbean Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Phone: +1 650 937-3194
EMail: robw@worldspot.com
Mark Smith
Pearl Crescent, LLC
447 Marlpool Drive
Saline, MI 48176
USA
Phone: +1 734 944-2856
EMail: mcs@pearlcrescent.com
Mark Wahl
PO Box 90626
Austin, TX 78709-0626
USA
Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
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 currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 6]

843
doc/rfc/rfc3866.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,843 @@
Network Working Group K. Zeilenga, Ed.
Request for Comments: 3866 OpenLDAP Foundation
Obsoletes: 2596 July 2004
Category: Standards Track
Language Tags and Ranges in the
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
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 (2004).
Abstract
It is often desirable to be able to indicate the natural language
associated with values held in a directory and to be able to query
the directory for values which fulfill the user's language needs.
This document details the use of Language Tags and Ranges in the
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).
1. Background and Intended Use
The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [RFC3377] provides a
means for clients to interrogate and modify information stored in a
distributed directory system. The information in the directory is
maintained as attributes of entries. Most of these attributes have
syntaxes which are human-readable strings, and it is desirable to be
able to indicate the natural language associated with attribute
values.
This document describes how language tags and ranges [RFC3066] are
carried in LDAP and are to be interpreted by LDAP implementations.
All LDAP implementations MUST be prepared to accept language tags and
ranges.
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 [RFC2119].
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
This document replaces RFC 2596. Appendix A summaries changes made
since RFC 2596.
Appendix B discusses differences from X.500(1997) "contexts"
mechanism.
Appendix A and B are provided for informational purposes only.
The remainder of this section provides a summary of Language Tags,
Language Ranges, and Attribute Descriptions.
1.1. Language Tags
Section 2 of BCP 47 [RFC3066] describes the language tag format which
is used in LDAP. Briefly, it is a string of [ASCII] letters and
hyphens. Examples include "fr", "en-US" and "ja-JP". Language tags
are case insensitive. That is, the language tag "en-us" is the same
as "EN-US".
Section 2 of this document details use of language tags in LDAP.
1.2. Language Ranges
Section 2.5 of BCP 47 [RFC3066] describes the language ranges.
Language ranges are used to specify sets of language tags.
A language range matches a language tag if it is exactly equal to the
tag, or if it is exactly equal to a prefix of the tag such that the
first character following the prefix is "-". That is, the language
range "de" matches the language tags "de" and "de-CH" but not "den".
The special language range "*" matches all language tags.
Due to attribute description option naming restrictions in LDAP, this
document defines a different language range syntax. However, the
semantics of language ranges in LDAP are consistent with BCP 47.
Section 3 of this document details use of language ranges in LDAP.
1.3. Attribute Descriptions
This section provides an overview of attribute descriptions in LDAP.
LDAP attributes and attribute descriptions are defined in [RFC2251].
An attribute consists of a type, a set of zero or more associated
tagging options, and a set of one or more values. The type and the
options are combined into the AttributeDescription.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
AttributeDescriptions can also contain options which are not part of
the attribute, but indicate some other function (such as range
assertion or transfer encoding).
An AttributeDescription with one or more tagging options is a direct
subtype of each AttributeDescription of the same type with all but
one of the tagging options. If the AttributeDescription's type is a
direct subtype of some other type, then the AttributeDescription is
also a direct subtype of the AttributeDescription which consists of
the supertype and all of the tagging options. That is,
"CN;x-bar;x-foo" is a direct subtype of "CN;x-bar", "CN;x-foo", and
"name;x-bar;x-foo". Note that "CN" is a subtype of "name".
2. Use of Language Tags in LDAP
This section describes how LDAP implementations MUST interpret
language tags in performing operations.
Servers which support storing attributes with language tag options in
the Directory Information Tree (DIT) SHOULD allow any attribute type
it recognizes that has the Directory String, IA5 String, or other
textual string syntaxes to have language tag options associated with
it. Servers MAY allow language options to be associated with other
attributes types.
Clients SHOULD NOT assume servers are capable of storing attributes
with language tags in the directory.
Implementations MUST NOT otherwise interpret the structure of the tag
when comparing two tags, and MUST treat them simply as strings of
characters. Implementations MUST allow any arbitrary string which
conforms to the syntax defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066] to be used as a
language tag.
2.1. Language Tag Options
A language tag option associates a natural language with values of an
attribute. An attribute description may contain multiple language
tag options. An entry may contain multiple attributes with same
attribute type but different combinations of language tag (and other)
options.
A language tag option conforms to the following ABNF [RFC2234]:
language-tag-option = "lang-" Language-Tag
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
where the Language-Tag production is as defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066].
This production and those it imports from [RFC2234] are provided here
for convenience:
Language-Tag = Primary-subtag *( "-" Subtag )
Primary-subtag = 1*8ALPHA
Subtag = 1*8(ALPHA / DIGIT)
ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z
DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9
A language tag option is a tagging option. A language tag option has
no effect on the syntax of the attribute's values nor their transfer
encoding.
Examples of valid AttributeDescription:
givenName;lang-en-US
CN;lang-ja
SN;lang-de;lang-gem-PFL
O;lang-i-klingon;x-foobar
description;x-foobar
CN
Notes: The last two have no language tag options. The x-foobar
option is fictious and used for example purposes.
2.2. Search Filter
If language tag options are present in an AttributeDescription in an
assertion, then for each entry within scope, the values of each
attribute whose AttributeDescription consists of the same attribute
type or its subtypes and contains each of the presented (and possibly
other) options is to be matched.
Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type
"name;lang-en-US" and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the
following directory entry:
dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
objectClass: person DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
objectClass: extensibleObject DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
CN;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray MATCHES
CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray DOES NOT MATCH (differing lang-)
CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
name: Billy Ray DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
SN: Ray DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-,
wrong value)
Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".
It is noted that providing a language tag option in a search filter
AttributeDescription will filter out desirable values where the tag
does not match exactly. For example, the filter (name;lang-en=Billy
Ray) does NOT match the attribute "name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray".
If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
options in the DIT, then any assertion which includes a language tag
option will not match as such it is an unrecognized attribute type.
No error would be returned because of this; a presence assertion
would evaluate to FALSE and all other assertions to Undefined.
If no options are specified in the assertion, then only the base
attribute type and the assertion value need match the value in the
directory.
Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type "name" and
assertion value "Billy Ray", against the following directory entry:
dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
objectClass: person DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
objectClass: extensibleObject DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray MATCHES
CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray MATCHES
CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray MATCHES
name: Billy Ray MATCHES
SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
SN: Ray DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
2.3. Requested Attributes in Search
Clients can provide language tag options in each AttributeDescription
in the requested attribute list in a search request.
If language tag options are provided in an attribute description,
then only attributes in a directory entry whose attribute
descriptions have the same attribute type or its subtype and contains
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
each of the presented (and possibly other) language tag options are
to be returned. Thus if a client requests just the attribute
"name;lang-en", the server would return "name;lang-en" and
"CN;lang-en;lang-ja" but not "SN" nor "name;lang-fr".
Clients can provide in the attribute list multiple
AttributeDescriptions which have the same base attribute type but
different options. For example, a client could provide both
"name;lang-en" and "name;lang-fr", and this would permit an attribute
with either language tag option to be returned. Note there would be
no need to provide both "name" and "name;lang-en" since all subtypes
of name would match "name".
If a server does not support storing attributes with language tag
options in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
include language tag options are to be ignored, just as if they were
unknown attribute types.
If a request is made specifying all attributes or an attribute is
requested without providing a language tag option, then all attribute
values regardless of their language tag option are returned.
For example, if the client requests a "description" attribute, and a
matching entry contains the following attributes:
objectClass: top
objectClass: organization
O: Software GmbH
description: software products
description;lang-en: software products
description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte
The server would return:
description: software products
description;lang-en: software products
description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte
2.4. Compare
Language tag options can be present in an AttributeDescription used
in a compare request AttributeValueAssertion. This is to be treated
by servers the same as the use of language tag options in a search
filter with an equality match, as described in Section 2.2. If there
is no attribute in the entry with the same attribute type or its
subtype and contains each of the presented (or possibly other)
language tag options, the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
Thus, for example, a compare request of type "name" and assertion
value "Johann", against an entry containing the following attributes:
objectClass: top
objectClass: person
givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
CN: Johann Sibelius
SN: Sibelius
would cause the server to return compareTrue.
However, if the client issued a compare request of type
"name;lang-de" and assertion value "Johann" against the above entry,
the request would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.
If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
options in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language tag
option will always fail to locate an attribute, and
noSuchAttributeType will be returned.
2.5. Add Operation
Clients can provide language options in AttributeDescription in
attributes of a new entry to be created.
A client can provide multiple attributes with the same attribute type
and value, so long as each attribute has a different set of language
tag options.
For example, the following is a valid request:
dn: CN=John Smith,DC=example,DC=com
objectClass: residentialPerson
CN: John Smith
CN;lang-en: John Smith
SN: Smith
SN;lang-en: Smith
streetAddress: 1 University Street
streetAddress;lang-en-US: 1 University Street
streetAddress;lang-fr: 1 rue Universite
houseIdentifier;lang-fr: 9e etage
If a server does not support storing language tag options with
attribute values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an
AttributeDescription with a language tag option as an unrecognized
attribute. If the server forbids the addition of unrecognized
attributes then it MUST fail the add request with an appropriate
result code.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
2.6. Modify Operation
A client can provide language tag options in an AttributeDescription
as part of a modification element in the modify operation.
Attribute types and language tag options MUST match exactly against
values stored in the directory. For example, if the modification is
a "delete", then if the stored values to be deleted have language tag
options, then those language tag options MUST be provided in the
modify operation, and if the stored values to be deleted do not have
any language tag option, then no language tag option is to be
provided.
If the server does not support storing language tag options with
attribute values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an
AttributeDescription with a language tag option as an unrecognized
attribute, and MUST fail the request with an appropriate result code.
3. Use of Language Ranges in LDAP
Since the publication of RFC 2596, it has become apparent that there
is a need to provide a mechanism for a client to request attributes
based upon set of language tag options whose tags all begin with the
same sequence of language sub-tags.
AttributeDescriptions containing language range options are intended
to be used in attribute value assertions, search attribute lists, and
other places where the client desires to provide an attribute
description matching of a range of language tags associated with
attributes.
A language range option conforms to the following ABNF [RFC2234]:
language-range-option = "lang-" [ Language-Tag "-" ]
where the Language-Tag production is as defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066].
This production and those it imports from [RFC2234] are provided in
Section 2.1 for convenience.
A language range option matches a language tag option if the language
range option less the trailing "-" matches exactly the language tag
or if the language range option (including the trailing "-") matches
a prefix of the language tag option. Note that the language range
option "lang-" matches all language tag options.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
Examples of valid AttributeDescription containing language range
options:
givenName;lang-en-
CN;lang-
SN;lang-de-;lang-gem-
O;lang-x-;x-foobar
A language range option is not a tagging option. Attributes cannot
be stored with language range options. Any attempt to add or update
an attribute description with a language range option SHALL be
treated as an undefined attribute type and result in an error.
A language range option has no effect on the transfer encoding nor on
the syntax of the attribute values.
Servers SHOULD support assertion of language ranges for any attribute
type which they allow to be stored with language tags.
3.1. Search Filter
If a language range option is present in an AttributeDescription in
an assertion, then for each entry within scope, the values of each
attribute whose AttributeDescription consists of the same attribute
type or its subtypes and contains a language tag option matching the
language range option are to be returned.
Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type
"name;lang-en-" and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the
following directory entry:
dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
objectClass: person DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
objectClass: extensibleObject DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
CN;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray MATCHES
CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray MATCHES
CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
name: Billy Ray DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
SN: Ray DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-,
wrong value)
Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
options in the DIT, then any assertion which includes a language
range option will not match as it is an unrecognized attribute type.
No error would be returned because of this; a presence filter would
evaluate to FALSE and all other assertions to Undefined.
3.2. Requested Attributes in Search
Clients can provide language range options in each
AttributeDescription in the requested attribute list in a search
request.
If a language range option is provided in an attribute description,
then only attributes in a directory entry whose attribute
descriptions have the same attribute type or its subtype and a
language tag option matching the provided language range option are
to be returned. Thus if a client requests just the attribute
"name;lang-en-", the server would return "name;lang-en-US" and
"CN;lang-en;lang-ja" but not "SN" nor "name;lang-fr".
Clients can provide in the attribute list multiple
AttributeDescriptions which have the same base attribute type but
different options. For example a client could provide both
"name;lang-en-" and "name;lang-fr-", and this would permit an
attribute whose type was name or subtype of name and with a language
tag option matching either language range option to be returned.
If a server does not support storing attributes with language tag
options in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
include language range options are to be ignored, just as if they
were unknown attribute types.
3.3. Compare
Language range options can be present in an AttributeDescription used
in a compare request AttributeValueAssertion. This is to be treated
by servers the same as the use of language range options in a search
filter with an equality match, as described in Section 3.1. If there
is no attribute in the entry with the same subtype and a matching
language tag option, the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.
Thus, for example, a compare request of type "name;lang-" and
assertion value "Johann", against the entry with the following
attributes:
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
objectClass: top
objectClass: person
givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
CN: Johann Sibelius
SN: Sibelius
will cause the server to return compareTrue. (Note that the language
range option "lang-" matches any language tag option.)
However, if the client issued a compare request of type
"name;lang-de" and assertion value "Sibelius" against the above
entry, the request would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.
If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
options in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language
range option will always fail to locate an attribute, and
noSuchAttributeType will be returned.
4. Discovering Language Option Support
A server SHOULD indicate that it supports storing attributes with
language tag options in the DIT by publishing 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.4
as a value of the root DSE.
A server SHOULD indicate that it supports language range matching of
attributes with language tag options stored in the DIT by publishing
1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.5 as a value of the "supportedFeatures"
[RFC3674] attribute in the root DSE.
A server MAY restrict use of language tag options to a subset of the
attribute types it recognizes. This document does not define a
mechanism for determining which subset of attribute types can be used
with language tag options.
5. Interoperability with Non-supporting Implementations
Implementators of this specification should take care that their use
of language tag options does not impede proper function of
implementations which do not support language tags.
Per RFC 2251, "an AttributeDescription with one or more options is
treated as a subtype of the attribute type without any options." A
non-supporting server will treat an AttributeDescription with any
language tag options as an unrecognized attribute type. A non-
supporting client will either do the same, or will treat the
AttributeDescription as it would any other unknown subtype.
Typically, non-supporting clients simply ignore unrecognized subtypes
(and unrecognized attribute types) of attributes they request.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
To ensure proper function of non-supporting clients, supporting
clients SHOULD ensure that entries they populate with tagged values
are also populated with non-tagged values.
Additionally, supporting clients SHOULD be prepared to handle entries
which are not populated with tagged values.
6. Security Considerations
Language tags and range options are used solely to indicate the
native language of values and in querying the directory for values
which fulfill the user's language needed. These options are not
known to raise specific security considerations. However, the reader
should consider general directory security issues detailed in the
LDAP technical specification [RFC3377].
7. IANA Considerations
Registration of these protocol mechanisms [RFC3383] has been
completed by the IANA.
Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.4
Description: Language Tag Options
Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.5
Description: Language Range Options
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@openldap.org>
Usage: Feature
Specification: RFC 3866
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments: none
These OIDs were assigned [ASSIGN] by OpenLDAP Foundation, under its
IANA-assigned private enterprise allocation [PRIVATE], for use in
this specification.
8. Acknowledgments
This document is a revision of RFC 2596 by Mark Wahl and Tim Howes.
RFC 2596 was a product of the IETF ASID and LDAPEXT working groups.
This document also borrows from a number of IETF documents including
BCP 47 by H. Alvestrand.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December
1997.
[RFC3066] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
[RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
September 2002.
[RFC3674] Zeilenga, K., "Feature Discovery in Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)", RFC 3674, December
2003.
[ASCII] Coded Character Set--7-bit American Standard Code for
Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
9.2. Informative References
[X.501] International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The
Directory -- Models," X.501(1997).
[RFC3383] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) Considerations for Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002.
[ASSIGN] OpenLDAP Foundation, "OpenLDAP OID Delegations",
http://www.openldap.org/foundation/oid-delegate.txt.
[PRIVATE] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers",
http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
Appendix A. Differences from RFC 2596
This document adds support for language ranges, provides a mechanism
that a client can use to discover whether a server supports language
tags and ranges, and clarifies how attributes with multiple language
tags are to be treated. This document is a significant rewrite of
RFC 2596.
Appendix B. Differences from X.500(1997)
X.500(1997) [X.501] defines a different mechanism, contexts, as the
means of representing language tags (codes). This section summarizes
the major differences in approach.
a) An X.500 operation which has specified a language code on a value
matches a value in the directory without a language code.
b) LDAP references BCP 47 [RFC3066], which allows for IANA
registration of new tags as well as unregistered tags.
c) LDAP supports language ranges (new in this revision).
d) LDAP does not allow language tags (and ranges) in distinguished
names.
e) X.500 describes subschema administration procedures to allow
language codes to be associated with particular attributes types.
Editor's Address
Kurt D. Zeilenga
OpenLDAP Foundation
EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
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 currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 15]