mirror/openldap
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap.git synced 2024-12-27 03:20:22 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
45d0479d37
openldap/doc/rfc/rfc3383.txt
Kurt Zeilenga b1cb903351 Add "IANA Considerations for LDAP" (rfc3383)
2002-09-20 20:50:53 +00:00

1292 lines
45 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Network Working Group K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 3383 OpenLDAP Foundation
BCP: 64 September 2002
Category: Best Current Practice
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations
for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document provides procedures for registering extensible elements
of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). This document
also provides guidelines to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) describing conditions under which new values can be assigned.
1. Introduction
The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [RFC3377] is an
extensible protocol. LDAP supports:
- addition of new operations,
- extension of existing operations, and
- extensible schema.
This document details procedures for registering values of used to
unambiguously identify extensible elements of the protocol including:
- LDAP message types;
- LDAP extended operations and controls;
- LDAP result codes;
- LDAP authentication methods;
- LDAP attribute description options; and
- Object Identifier descriptors.
These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA).
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
In addition, this document provides guidelines to IANA describing the
conditions under which new values can be assigned.
2. Terminology and Conventions
This section details terms and conventions used in this document.
2.1. Policy Terminology
The terms "IESG Approval", "Standards Action", "IETF Consensus",
"Specification Required", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
and "Private Use" are used as defined in BCP 26 [RFC2434].
2.2. Requirement Terminology
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]. In
this case, "the specification" as used by BCP 14 refers to the
processing of protocols being submitted to the IETF standards
process.
2.3. Common ABNF Productions
A number of syntaxes in this document are described using ABNF
[RFC2234]. These syntaxes rely on the following common productions:
ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z
LDIGIT = %x31-39 ; 1-9
DIGIT = %x30 / LDIGIT ; 0-9
HYPHEN = %x2D ; "-"
DOT = %x2E ; "."
number = DIGIT / ( LDIGIT 1*DIGIT )
keychar = ALPHA / DIGIT / HYPHEN
leadkeychar = ALPHA
keystring = leadkeychar *keychar
A keyword is a case-insensitive string of UTF-8 [RFC2279] encoded
characters from the Universal Character Set (UCS) [ISO10646]
restricted to the <keystring> production.
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
3. IANA Considerations for LDAP
This section details each kind of protocol value which can be
registered and provides IANA guidelines on how to assign new values.
IANA may reject obviously bogus registration requests.
3.1. Object Identifiers
Numerous LDAP schema and protocol elements are identified by Object
Identifiers. Specifications which assign OIDs to elements SHOULD
state who delegated the OIDs for its use.
For IETF developed elements, specifications SHOULD use OIDs under
"Internet Directory Numbers" (1.3.6.1.1.x). Numbers under this OID
arc will be assigned upon Expert Review with Specification Required.
Only one OID per specification will be assigned. The specification
MAY then assign any number of OIDs within this arc without further
coordination with IANA.
For elements developed by others, any properly delegated OID can
be used, including those under "Internet Private Enterprise
Numbers" (1.3.6.1.4.1.x) assigned by IANA
<http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/enterprise.pl>.
To avoid interoperability problems between early implementations of
"works in progress" and implementations of the published
specification (e.g., the RFC), experimental OIDs SHOULD be used in
"works in progress" and early implementations. OIDs under the
Internet Experimental OID arc (1.3.6.1.3.x) may be used for this
purpose.
Experimental OIDs are not to used in published specifications (e.g.,
RFCs).
Practices for IANA assignment of Internet Enterprise and Experimental
OIDs are detailed in STD 16 [RFC1155].
3.2 Protocol Mechanisms
LDAP provides a number of Root DSE attributes for discovery of
protocol mechanisms identified by OIDs, including:
- supportedControl [RFC2252] and
- supportedExtension [RFC2252].
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
A registry of OIDs used for discover of protocol mechanisms is
provided to allow implementors and others to locate the technical
specification for these protocol mechanisms. Future specifications
of additional Root DSE attributes holding values identifying protocol
mechanisms MAY extend this registry for their values.
OIDs associated with discoverable protocol mechanisms SHOULD be
registered. These are be considered on a First Come First Served
with Specification Required basis.
OIDs associated with Standard Track mechanisms MUST be registered and
require Standards Action.
3.3. Object Identifier Descriptors
LDAP allows short descriptive names (or descriptors) to be used
instead of a numeric Object Identifier to identify protocol
extensions [RFC2251], schema elements [RFC2252], LDAP URL [RFC2255]
extensions, and other objects. Descriptors are restricted to strings
of UTF-8 encoded UCS characters restricted by the following ABNF:
name = keystring
Descriptors are case-insensitive.
Multiple names may be assigned to a given OID. For purposes of
registration, an OID is to be represented in numeric OID form
conforming to the ABNF:
numericoid = number *( DOT number ) ; e.g., 1.1.0.23.40
While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon
descriptors, they should be short. Descriptors longer than 48
characters may be viewed as too long to register.
A values ending with a hyphen ("-") reserve all descriptors which
start with the value. For example, the registration of the option
"descrFamily-" reserves all options which start with "descrFamily-"
for some related purpose.
Descriptors beginning with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be
registered.
Descriptors beginning with "e-" are reserved for experiments and will
be registered on a First Come First Served basis.
All other descriptors require Expert Review to be registered.
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
The registrant need not "own" the OID being named.
The OID namespace is managed by The ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee
1 - Subcommittee 6.
3.4. AttributeDescription Options
An AttributeDescription [RFC2251, Section 4.1.5] can contain zero or
more options specifying additional semantics. An option SHALL be
restricted to a string UTF-8 encoded UCS characters limited by the
following ABNF:
option = keystring
Options are case-insensitive.
While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon option
strings, they should be short. Options longer than 24 characters may
be viewed as too long to register.
Values ending with a hyphen ("-") reserve all option names which
start with the name. For example, the registration of the option
"optionFamily-" reserves all options which start with "optionFamily-"
for some related purpose.
Options beginning with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be
registered.
Options beginning with "e-" are reserved for experiments and will be
registered on a First Come First Served basis.
All other options require Standards Action or Expert Review with
Specification Required to be registered.
3.5. LDAP Message Types
Each protocol message is encapsulated in an LDAPMessage envelope
[RFC2251, Section 4.1.1]. The protocolOp CHOICE indicates the type
of message encapsulated. Each message type consists of a keyword and
a non-negative choice number is combined with the class (APPLICATION)
and data type (CONSTRUCTED or PRIMITIVE) to construct the BER tag in
the message's encoding. The choice numbers for existing protocol
messages are implicit in the protocol's ASN.1 defined in [RFC2251].
New values will be registered upon Standards Action.
Note: LDAP provides extensible messages which reduces, but does not
eliminate, the need to add new message types.
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
3.6. LDAP Result Codes
LDAP result messages carry an resultCode enumerated value to indicate
the outcome of the operation [RFC2251, Section 4.1.10]. Each result
code consists of a keyword and a non-negative integer.
New resultCodes integers in the range 0-1023 require Standards Action
to be registered. New resultCode integers in the range 1024-4095
require Expert Review with Specification Required. New resultCode
integers in the range 4096-16383 will be registered on a First Come
First Served basis. Keywords associated with integers in the range
0-4095 SHALL NOT start with "e-" or "x-". Keywords associated with
integers in the range 4096-16383 SHALL start with "e-". Values
greater than or equal to 16384 and keywords starting with "x-" are
for Private Use and cannot be registered.
3.7. LDAP Authentication Method
The LDAP Bind operation supports multiple authentication methods
[RFC2251, Section 4.2]. Each authentication choice consists of a
keyword and a non-negative integer.
The registrant SHALL classify the authentication method usage using
one of the following terms:
COMMON - method is appropriate for common use on the
Internet,
LIMITED USE - method is appropriate for limited use,
OBSOLETE - method has been deprecated or otherwise found to be
inappropriate for any use.
Methods without publicly available specifications SHALL NOT be
classified as COMMON. New registrations of class OBSOLETE cannot be
registered.
New authentication method integers in the range 0-1023 require
Standards Action to be registered. New authentication method
integers in the range 1024-4095 require Expert Review with
Specification Required. New authentication method integers in the
range 4096-16383 will be registered on a First Come First Served
basis. Keywords associated with integers in the range 0-4095 SHALL
NOT start with "e-" or "x-". Keywords associated with integers in
the range 4096-16383 SHALL start with "e-". Values greater than or
equal to 16384 and keywords starting with "x-" are for Private Use
and cannot be registered.
Note: LDAP supports SASL [RFC2222] as an Authentication CHOICE.
SASL is an extensible LDAP authentication method.
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
3.8. Directory Systems Names
The IANA-maintained "Directory Systems Names" registry [IANADSN] of
valid keywords for well known attributes used in the LDAPv2 string
representation of a distinguished name [RFC1779]. RFC 1779 was
obsoleted by RFC 2253.
Directory systems names are not known to be used in any other
context. LDAPv3 uses Object Identifier Descriptors [Section 3.2]
(which have a different syntax than directory system names).
New Directory System Names will no longer be accepted. For
historical purposes, the current list of registered names should
remain publicly available.
4. Registration Procedure
The procedure given here MUST be used by anyone who wishes to use a
new value of a type described in Section 3 of this document.
The first step is for the requester to fill out the appropriate form.
Templates are provided in Appendix A.
If the policy is Standards Action, the completed form SHOULD be
provided to the IESG with the request for Standards Action. Upon
approval of the Standards Action, the IESG SHALL forward the request
(possibly revised) to IANA. The IESG SHALL be viewed as the owner of
all values requiring Standards Action.
If the policy is Expert Review, the requester SHALL post the
completed form to the <directory@apps.ietf.org> mailing list for
public review. The review period is two (2) weeks. If a revised
form is later submitted, the review period is restarted. Anyone
may subscribe to this list by sending a request to
<directory-request@apps.ietf.org>. During the review, objections
may be raised by anyone (including the Expert) on the list. After
completion of the review, the Expert, based upon public comments,
SHALL either approve the request and forward it to the IESG OR deny
the request. In either case, the Expert SHALL promptly notify the
requester of the action. Actions of the Expert may be appealed
[RFC2026]. The Expert is appointed by Applications Area Director(s).
The requester is viewed as the owner of values registered under
Expert Review.
If the policy is First Come First Served, the requester SHALL submit
the completed form directly to the IANA: <iana@iana.org>. The
requester is viewed as the owner of values registered under First
Come First Served.
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
Neither the Expert nor IANA will take position on the claims of
copyright or trademarks issues regarding completed forms.
Prior to submission of the Internet Draft (I-D) to the RFC Editor but
after IESG review and tentative approval, the document editor SHOULD
revise the I-D to use registered values.
5. Registration Maintenance
This section discusses maintenance of registrations.
5.1. Lists of Registered Values
IANA makes lists of registered values readily available to the
Internet community on their web site: <http://www.iana.org/>.
5.2. Change Control
The registration owner MAY update the registration subject to the
same constraints and review as with new registrations. In cases
where the owner is not unable or unwilling to make necessary updates,
the IESG MAY assert ownership in order to update the registration.
5.3. Comments
For cases where others (anyone other than the owner) have significant
objections to the claims in a registration and the owner does not
agree to change the registration, comments MAY be attached to a
registration upon Expert Review. For registrations owned by the
IESG, the objections SHOULD be addressed by initiating a request for
Expert Review.
The form of these requests is ad hoc, but MUST include the specific
objections to be reviewed and SHOULD contain (directly or by
reference) materials supporting the objections.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations detailed in [RFC2434] are generally
applicable to this document. Additional security considerations
specific to each namespace are discussed in Section 3 where
appropriate.
Security considerations for LDAP are discussed in documents
comprising the technical specification [RFC3377].
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
7. Acknowledgment
This document is a product of the IETF LDAP Revision (LDAPbis)
Working Group. Some text was borrowed from "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC2434] by Thomas Narten
and Harald Alvestrand.
8. Normative References
[RFC1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification
of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD
16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2234] Crocker, D. 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.
[RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille,
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute
Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.
[RFC2255] Howes, T. and M. Smith, "The LDAP URL Format", RFC 2255,
December, 1997.
[RFC2256] Wahl, M., "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use
with LDAPv3", RFC 2256, December 1997.
[RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
September 2002.
[IANADSN] IANA, "Directory Systems Names",
http://www.iana.org/assignments/directory-system-names
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
[ISO10646] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -
Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC
10646-1: 1993.
10. Informative References
[RFC1779] Kille, S., "A String Representation of Distinguished
Names", RFC 1779, March 1995.
[RFC2222] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer
(SASL)", RFC 2222, October 1997.
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
Appendix A. Registration Templates
This appendix provides registration templates for registering new
LDAP values.
A.1. LDAP Object Identifier Registration Template
Subject: Request for LDAP OID Registration
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Specification: (I-D)
Author/Change Controller:
Comments:
(Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request)
A.2. LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration Template
Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
Object Identifier:
Description:
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Usage: (One of Control or Extension)
Specification: (I-D)
Author/Change Controller:
Comments:
(Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request)
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
A.3. LDAP Descriptor Registration Template
Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration
Descriptor (short name):
Object Identifier:
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Usage: (One of attribute type, URL extension,
object class, or other)
Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)
Author/Change Controller:
Comments:
(Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request)
A.4. LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration Template
Subject: Request for LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
Option Name:
Family of Options: (YES or NO)
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)
Author/Change Controller:
Comments:
(Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request)
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
A.5. LDAP Message Type Registration Template
Subject: Request for LDAP Message Type Registration
LDAP Message Name:
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Specification: (Approved I-D)
Comments:
(Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request)
A.6. LDAP Result Code Registration Template
Subject: Request for LDAP Result Code Registration
Result Code Name:
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)
Author/Change Controller:
Comments:
(Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request)
A.7. LDAP Authentication Method Registration Template
Subject: Request for LDAP Authentication Method Registration
Authentication Method Name:
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)
Intended Usage: (One of COMMON, LIMITED-USE, OBSOLETE)
Author/Change Controller:
Comments:
(Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request)
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 13]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
Appendix B. Assigned Values
The following values are currently assigned.
B.1. Object Identifiers
Currently registered "Internet Private Enterprise Numbers" can be
found at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers>.
Currently registered "Internet Directory Numbers" can be found at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers>.
B.2. Protocol Mechanisms
Object Identifier Type Description Reference
-------------------------- ---- -------------- ---------
1.2.840.113556.1.4.473 C Sort Request [RFC2891]
1.2.840.113556.1.4.474 C Sort Response [RFC2891]
1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.119.1 E Dynamic Refresh [RFC2589]
1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037 E Start TLS [RFC2830]
1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.11.1 E Modify Password [RFC3062]
2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.2 C ManageDsaIT [RFC3296]
Legend
------------------------
C => supportedControl
E => supportedExtension
B.3. Object Identifier Descriptors
NAME Type OID [REF]
------------------------ ---- -----------------
account O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.5 [RFC1274]
alias O 2.5.6.1 [RFC2256]
aliasedEntryName A 2.5.4.1 [X.501]
aliasedObjectName A 2.5.4.1 [RFC2256]
altServer A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.6 [RFC2252]
applicationEntity O 2.5.6.12 [RFC2256]
applicationProcess O 2.5.6.11 [RFC2256]
aRecord A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.26 [RFC1274]
associatedDomain A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.37 [RFC1274]
associatedInternetGateway A 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.2.8 [RFC2164]
associatedName A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.38 [RFC1274]
associatedORAddress A 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.2.6 [RFC2164]
associatedX400Gateway A 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.2.3 [RFC2164]
attributeTypes A 2.5.21.5 [RFC2252]
audio A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.55 [RFC1274]
authorityRevocationList A 2.5.4.38 [RFC2256]
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 14]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
bitStringMatch M 2.5.13.16 [RFC2252]
buildingName A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.48 [RFC1274]
businessCategory A 2.5.4.15 [RFC2256]
C A 2.5.4.6 [RFC2256]
cACertificate A 2.5.4.37 [RFC2256]
calCalAdrURI A 1.2.840.113556.1.4.481 [RFC2739]
calCalURI A 1.2.840.113556.1.4.478 [RFC2739]
calCAPURI A 1.2.840.113556.1.4.480 [RFC2739]
calEntry O 1.2.840.113556.1.5.87 [RFC2739]
calFBURL A 1.2.840.113556.1.4.479 [RFC2739]
calOtherCalAdrURIs A 1.2.840.113556.1.4.485 [RFC2739]
calOtherCalURIs A 1.2.840.113556.1.4.482 [RFC2739]
calOtherCAPURIs A 1.2.840.113556.1.4.484 [RFC2739]
calOtherFBURLs A 1.2.840.113556.1.4.483 [RFC2739]
caseExactIA5Match M 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.1 [RFC2252]
caseIgnoreIA5Match M 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.2 [RFC2252]
caseIgnoreListMatch M 2.5.13.11 [RFC2252]
caseIgnoreMatch M 2.5.13.2 [RFC2252]
caseIgnoreOrderingMatch M 2.5.13.3 [RFC2252]
caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch M 2.5.13.4 [RFC2252]
certificateRevocationList A 2.5.4.39 [RFC2256]
certificationAuthority O 2.5.6.16 [RFC2256]
certificationAuthority-V2 O 2.5.6.16.2 [RFC2256]
CN A 2.5.4.3 [RFC2256]
cNAMERecord A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.31 [RFC1274]
co A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.43 [RFC1274]
commonName A 2.5.4.3 [RFC2256]
country O 2.5.6.2 [RFC2256]
countryName A 2.5.4.6 [RFC2256]
createTimestamp A 2.5.18.1 [RFC2252]
creatorsName A 2.5.18.3 [RFC2252]
cRLDistributionPoint O 2.5.6.19 [RFC2256]
crossCertificatePair A 2.5.4.40 [RFC2256]
DC A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25 [RFC2247]
dcObject O 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.344 [RFC2247]
deltaCRL O 2.5.6.23 [RFC2587]
deltaRevocationList A 2.5.4.53 [RFC2256]
description A 2.5.4.13 [RFC2256]
destinationIndicator A 2.5.4.27 [RFC2256]
device O 2.5.6.14 [RFC2256]
distinguishedName A 2.5.4.49 [RFC2256]
distinguishedNameMatch M 2.5.13.1 [RFC2252]
distinguishedNameTableEntry O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.5 [RFC2293]
distinguishedNameTableKey A 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.2.3 [RFC2293]
dITContentRules A 2.5.21.2 [RFC2252]
dITRedirect A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.54 [RFC1274]
dITStructureRules A 2.5.21.1 [RFC2252]
dmd O 2.5.6.20 [RFC2256]
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 15]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
dmdName A 2.5.4.54 [RFC2256]
dnQualifier A 2.5.4.46 [RFC2256]
dNSDomain O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.15 [RFC1274]
document O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.6 [RFC1274]
documentAuthor A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.14 [RFC1274]
documentIdentifier A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.11 [RFC1274]
documentLocation A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.15 [RFC1274]
documentPublisher A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.56 [RFC1274]
documentSeries O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.8 [RFC1274]
documentTitle A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.12 [RFC1274]
documentVersion A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.13 [RFC1274]
domain O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.13 [RFC2247]
domainComponent A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25 [RFC2247]
domainNameForm N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.345 [RFC2247]
domainRelatedObject O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.17 [RFC1274]
drink A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.5 [RFC1274]
dSA O 2.5.6.13 [RFC2256]
dSAQuality A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.49 [RFC1274]
dynamicObject O 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.119.2 [RFC2589]
dynamicSubtrees A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.119.4 [RFC2589]
enhancedSearchGuide A 2.5.4.47 [RFC2256]
entryTtl A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.119.3 [RFC2589]
extensibleObject O 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.111 [RFC2252]
facsimileTelephoneNumber A 2.5.4.23 [RFC2256]
favouriteDrink A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.5 [RFC1274]
friendlyCountry O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.18 [RFC1274]
friendlyCountryName A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.43 [RFC1274]
generalizedTimeMatch M 2.5.13.27 [RFC2252]
generalizedTimeOrderingMatch M 2.5.13.28 [RFC2252]
generationQualifier A 2.5.4.44 [RFC2256]
givenName A 2.5.4.42 [RFC2256]
GN A 2.5.4.42 [RFC2256]
groupOfNames O 2.5.6.9 [RFC2256]
groupOfUniqueNames O 2.5.6.17 [RFC2256]
homePhone A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.20 [RFC1274]
homePostalAddress A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.39 [RFC1274]
homeTelephone A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.20 [RFC1274]
host A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.9 [RFC1274]
houseIdentifier A 2.5.4.51 [RFC2256]
info A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.4 [RFC1274]
initials A 2.5.4.43 [RFC2256]
integerFirstComponentMatch M 2.5.13.29 [RFC2252]
integerMatch M 2.5.13.14 [RFC2252]
internationaliSDNNumber A 2.5.4.25 [RFC2256]
janetMailbox A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.46 [RFC1274]
jpegPhoto A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.60 [RFC1488]
knowledgeInformation A 2.5.4.2 [RFC2256]
L A 2.5.4.7 [RFC2256]
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 16]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
labeledURI A 1.3.6.1.4.1.250.1.57 [RFC2079]
labeledURIObject A 1.3.6.1.4.1.250.3.15 [RFC2079]
lastModifiedBy A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.24 [RFC1274]
lastModifiedTime A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.23 [RFC1274]
ldapSyntaxes A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.16 [RFC2252]
locality O 2.5.6.3 [RFC2256]
localityName A 2.5.4.7 [RFC2256]
mail A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.3 [RFC2798]
mailPreferenceOption A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.47 [RFC1274]
manager A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.10 [RFC1274]
matchingRules A 2.5.21.4 [RFC2252]
matchingRuleUse A 2.5.21.8 [RFC2252]
mcgamTables A 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.2.9 [RFC2164]
mDRecord A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.27 [RFC1274]
member A 2.5.4.31 [RFC2256]
mixerGateway O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.4 [RFC2164]
mobile A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.41 [RFC1274]
mobileTelephoneNumber A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.41 [RFC1274]
modifiersName A 2.5.18.4 [RFC2252]
modifyTimestamp A 2.5.18.2 [RFC2252]
mXRecord A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.28 [RFC1274]
name A 2.5.4.41 [RFC2256]
nameForms A 2.5.21.7 [RFC2252]
namingContexts A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.5 [RFC2252]
nSRecord A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.29 [RFC1274]
numericStringMatch M 2.5.13.8 [RFC2252]
numericStringSubstringsMatch M 2.5.13.10 [RFC2252]
O A 2.5.4.10 [RFC2256]
objectClass A 2.5.4.0 [RFC2256]
objectClasses A 2.5.21.6 [RFC2252]
objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch M 2.5.13.30 [RFC2252]
objectIdentifiersMatch M 2.5.13.0 [RFC2252]
octetStringMatch M 2.5.13.17 [RFC2252]
omittedORAddressComponent O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.3 [RFC2164]
oRAddressComponentType A 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.2.7 [RFC2164]
organization O 2.5.6.4 [RFC2256]
organizationalPerson O 2.5.6.7 [RFC2256]
organizationalRole O 2.5.6.8 [RFC2256]
organizationalStatus A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.45 [RFC1274]
organizationalUnit O 2.5.6.5 [RFC2256]
organizationalUnitName A 2.5.4.11 [RFC2256]
organizationName A 2.5.4.10 [RFC2256]
otherMailbox A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.22 [RFC1274]
OU A 2.5.4.11 [RFC2256]
owner A 2.5.4.32 [RFC2256]
pager A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.42 [RFC1274]
pagerTelephoneNumber A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.42 [RFC1274]
person O 2.5.6.6 [RFC2256]
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 17]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
personalSignature A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.53 [RFC1274]
personalTitle A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.40 [RFC1274]
photo A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.7 [RFC1274]
physicalDeliveryOfficeName A 2.5.4.19 [RFC2256]
pilotDSA O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.21 [RFC1274]
pilotObject O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.3 [RFC1274]
pilotOrganization O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.20 [RFC1274]
pilotPerson O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.4 [RFC1274]
pkiCA O 2.5.6.22 [RFC2587]
pkiUser O 2.5.6.21 [RFC2587]
postalAddress A 2.5.4.16 [RFC2256]
postalCode A 2.5.4.17 [RFC2256]
postOfficeBox A 2.5.4.18 [RFC2256]
preferredDeliveryMethod A 2.5.4.28 [RFC2256]
presentationAddress A 2.5.4.29 [RFC2256]
presentationAddressMatch M 2.5.13.22 [RFC2252]
protocolInformation A 2.5.4.48 [RFC2256]
protocolInformationMatch M 2.5.13.24 [RFC2252]
qualityLabelledData O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.22 [RFC1274]
ref A 2.16.840.1.113730.3.1.34 [RFC3296]
referral 0 2.16.840.1.113730.3.2.6 [RFC3296]
registeredAddress A 2.5.4.26 [RFC2256]
residentialPerson O 2.5.6.10 [RFC2256]
RFC822LocalPart O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.14 [RFC1274]
RFC822Mailbox A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.3 [RFC1274]
rFC822ToX400Mapping O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.1 [RFC2164]
roleOccupant A 2.5.4.33 [RFC2256]
room O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.7 [RFC1274]
roomNumber A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.6 [RFC1274]
searchGuide A 2.5.4.14 [RFC2256]
secretary A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.21 [RFC1274]
seeAlso A 2.5.4.34 [RFC2256]
serialNumber A 2.5.4.5 [RFC2256]
simpleSecurityObject O 0.9.2342.19200300.100.4.19 [RFC1274]
singleLevelQuality A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.50 [RFC1274]
SN A 2.5.4.4 [RFC2256]
sOARecord A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.30 [RFC1274]
ST A 2.5.4.8 [RFC2256]
stateOrProvinceName A 2.5.4.8 [RFC2256]
street A 2.5.4.9 [RFC2256]
streetAddress A 2.5.4.9 [RFC2256]
strongAuthenticationUser O 2.5.6.15 [RFC2256]
subschema O 2.5.20.1 [RFC2252]
subschemaSubentry A 2.5.18.10 [RFC2252]
subtree O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.1 [RFC2293]
subtreeMaximumQuality A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.52 [RFC1274]
subtreeMinimumQuality A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.51 [RFC1274]
supportedAlgorithms A 2.5.4.52 [RFC2256]
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 18]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
supportedApplicationContext A 2.5.4.30 [RFC2256]
supportedControl A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.13 [RFC2252]
supportedExtension A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.7 [RFC2252]
supportedLDAPVersion A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.15 [RFC2252]
supportedSASLMechanisms A 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.14 [RFC2252]
surname A 2.5.4.4 [RFC2256]
table O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.2 [RFC2293]
tableEntry O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.3 [RFC2293]
telephoneNumber A 2.5.4.20 [RFC2256]
telephoneNumberMatch M 2.5.13.20 [RFC2252]
telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch M 2.5.13.21 [RFC2252]
teletexTerminalIdentifier A 2.5.4.22 [RFC2256]
telexNumber A 2.5.4.21 [RFC2256]
textEncodedORAddress A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.2 [RFC1274]
textTableEntry O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.4 [RFC2293]
textTableKey A 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.2.1 [RFC2293]
textTableValue A 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.2.2 [RFC2293]
title A 2.5.4.12 [RFC2256]
top O 2.5.6.0 [RFC2256]
uid A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1 [RFC2253]
uniqueIdentifier A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.44 [RFC1274]
uniqueMember A 2.5.4.50 [RFC2256]
uniqueMemberMatch M 2.5.13.23 [RFC2252]
userCertificate A 2.5.4.36 [RFC2256]
userClass A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.8 [RFC1274]
userId A 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1 [RFC1274]
userPassword A 2.5.4.35 [RFC2256]
userSecurityInformation O 2.5.6.18 [RFC2256]
x121Address A 2.5.4.24 [RFC2256]
x400ToRFC822Mapping O 1.3.6.1.4.1.453.7.1.2 [RFC2164]
x500UniqueIdentifier A 2.5.4.45 [RFC2256]
Legend
------------------------
A => Attribute Type
C => DIT Content Rule
E => LDAP URL Extension
M => Matching Rule
N => Name Form
O => Object Class
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 19]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
B.4. Attribute Description Options
Option Owner Reference
---------------- ----- ---------
binary IESG [RFC2251]
lang-* IESG [RFC2596]
* family of options
B.5. LDAPMessage types
Name Code Owner Reference
--------------------------- ---- ----- ---------
bindRequest 0 IESG [RFC2251]
bindResponse 1 IESG [RFC2251]
unbindRequest 2 IESG [RFC2251]
searchRequest 3 IESG [RFC2251]
searchResEntry 4 IESG [RFC2251]
searchResDone 5 IESG [RFC2251]
modifyRequest 6 IESG [RFC2251]
modifyResponse 7 IESG [RFC2251]
addRequest 8 IESG [RFC2251]
addResponse 9 IESG [RFC2251]
delRequest 10 IESG [RFC2251]
delResponse 11 IESG [RFC2251]
modDNRequest 12 IESG [RFC2251]
modDNResponse 13 IESG [RFC2251]
compareRequest 14 IESG [RFC2251]
compareResponse 15 IESG [RFC2251]
abandonRequest 16 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved 17-18 IESG
searchResRef 19 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved 20-22 IESG
extendedReq 23 IESG [RFC2251]
extendedResp 24 IESG [RFC2251]
B.6. resultCode values
Name Code Owner Reference
--------------------------- ---- ----- ---------
success 0 IESG [RFC2251]
operationsError 1 IESG [RFC2251]
protocolError 2 IESG [RFC2251]
timeLimitExceeded 3 IESG [RFC2251]
sizeLimitExceeded 4 IESG [RFC2251]
compareFalse 5 IESG [RFC2251]
compareTrue 6 IESG [RFC2251]
authMethodNotSupported 7 IESG [RFC2251]
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 20]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
strongAuthRequired 8 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved (partialResults) 9 IESG [RFC2251]
referral 10 IESG [RFC2251]
adminLimitExceeded 11 IESG [RFC2251]
unavailableCriticalExtension 12 IESG [RFC2251]
confidentialityRequired 13 IESG [RFC2251]
saslBindInProgress 14 IESG [RFC2251]
noSuchAttribute 16 IESG [RFC2251]
undefinedAttributeType 17 IESG [RFC2251]
inappropriateMatching 18 IESG [RFC2251]
constraintViolation 19 IESG [RFC2251]
attributeOrValueExists 20 IESG [RFC2251]
invalidAttributeSyntax 21 IESG [RFC2251]
noSuchObject 32 IESG [RFC2251]
aliasProblem 33 IESG [RFC2251]
invalidDNSyntax 34 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved (isLeaf) 35 IESG [RFC2251]
aliasDereferencingProblem 36 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved 37-47 IESG
inappropriateAuthentication 48 IESG [RFC2251]
invalidCredentials 49 IESG [RFC2251]
insufficientAccessRights 50 IESG [RFC2251]
busy 51 IESG [RFC2251]
unavailable 52 IESG [RFC2251]
unwillingToPerform 53 IESG [RFC2251]
loopDetect 54 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved 55-63 IESG
namingViolation 64 IESG [RFC2251]
objectClassViolation 65 IESG [RFC2251]
notAllowedOnNonLeaf 66 IESG [RFC2251]
notAllowedOnRDN 67 IESG [RFC2251]
entryAlreadyExists 68 IESG [RFC2251]
objectClassModsProhibited 69 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved (resultsTooLarge) 70 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved 71-79 IESG
other 80 IESG [RFC2251]
reserved (APIs) 81-90 IESG [RFC2251]
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 21]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
B.7. Bind Authentication Method
Method Value Owner Usage Reference
------ ----- ----- ----------- -----------------
simple 0 IESG LIMITED USE [RFC2251,RFC2829]
krbv42LDAP 1 IESG OBSOLETE* [RFC1777]
krbv42DSA 2 IESG OBSOLETE* [RFC1777]
sasl 3 IESG COMMON [RFC2251,RFC2829]
* These LDAPv2-only mechanisms were deprecated in favor of the
LDAPv3 SASL authentication method, specifically the GSSAPI mechanism.
Author's Address
Kurt D. Zeilenga
OpenLDAP Foundation
EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 22]
RFC 3383 IANA Considerations for LDAP September 2002
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Zeilenga Best Current Practice [Page 23]
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink