mirror of
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap.git
synced 2024-12-21 03:10:25 +08:00
615 lines
23 KiB
Plaintext
615 lines
23 KiB
Plaintext
INTERNET-DRAFT S. Legg
|
||
draft-legg-ldap-transfer-03.txt Adacel Technologies
|
||
Intended Category: Standards Track 16 June 2004
|
||
Updates: RFC 2252bis
|
||
|
||
|
||
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
|
||
Transfer Encoding Options
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
|
||
|
||
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 documents of the Internet Engineering
|
||
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
|
||
other groups may also distribute working documents as
|
||
Internet-Drafts.
|
||
|
||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
|
||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
|
||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
|
||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
|
||
|
||
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
|
||
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
|
||
|
||
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
|
||
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
|
||
|
||
This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and
|
||
revision, submitted to the RFC Editor as a Standard Track document.
|
||
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Technical discussion of
|
||
this document should take place on the IETF LDAP Revision Working
|
||
Group (LDAPbis) mailing list <ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org>. Please
|
||
send editorial comments directly to the editor
|
||
<steven.legg@adacel.com.au>.
|
||
|
||
This Internet-Draft expires on 16 December 2004.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
Each attribute stored in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
|
||
(LDAP) directory has a defined syntax (i.e., data type). A syntax
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 1]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
definition specifies how attribute values conforming to the syntax
|
||
are normally represented when transferred in LDAP operations. This
|
||
representation is referred to as the LDAP-specific encoding to
|
||
distinguish it from other methods of encoding attribute values. This
|
||
document introduces a new category of attribute options, called
|
||
transfer encoding options, which can be used to specify that the
|
||
associated attribute values are encoded according to one of these
|
||
other methods.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 2]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
|
||
2. Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
|
||
3. Transfer Encoding Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
|
||
4. Defined Transfer Encoding Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
|
||
5. Attributes Returned in a Search. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
|
||
6. Syntaxes Requiring Binary Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
|
||
7. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
|
||
8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
|
||
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
|
||
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
|
||
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
||
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
||
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction
|
||
|
||
Each attribute stored in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
|
||
(LDAP) directory [ROADMAP] has a defined syntax (i.e., data type)
|
||
which constrains the structure and format of its values.
|
||
|
||
The description of each syntax [SYNTAX] specifies how attribute or
|
||
assertion values [MODELS] conforming to the syntax are normally
|
||
represented when transferred in LDAP operations [PROT]. This
|
||
representation is referred to as the LDAP-specific encoding to
|
||
distinguish it from other methods of encoding attribute values.
|
||
|
||
This document introduces a new category of attribute options
|
||
[MODELS], called transfer encoding options, that allow attribute and
|
||
assertion values to be transferred using an alternative method of
|
||
encoding. This document defines several transfer encoding options
|
||
which can be used in an attribute description [MODELS] in an LDAP
|
||
operation to specify that the associated attribute values or
|
||
assertion value are, or are requested to be, encoded according to
|
||
specific Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [X680] encoding rules,
|
||
instead of the usual LDAP-specific encoding. One option in
|
||
particular allows Extensible Markup Language (XML) [XML] encodings.
|
||
|
||
2. Conventions
|
||
|
||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
|
||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
|
||
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
|
||
[KEYWORD].
|
||
|
||
This specification makes use of definitions from the XML Information
|
||
Set (Infoset) [ISET]. In particular, information item property names
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 3]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
are presented per the Infoset, e.g., [local name].
|
||
|
||
3. Transfer Encoding Options
|
||
|
||
Transfer encoding options enable attribute and assertion values to be
|
||
transferred using an alternative method of encoding to the default
|
||
LDAP-specific encoding. In fact, some attribute and assertion
|
||
syntaxes do not have a defined LDAP-specific encoding in which case
|
||
the only way values of those syntaxes can be transferred is by using
|
||
an alternative encoding.
|
||
|
||
The binary option [BINARY] is not formally regarded as a transfer
|
||
encoding option, though it has much in common with transfer encoding
|
||
options. The requirements governing the use of transfer encoding
|
||
options do not apply to the binary option. The requirements
|
||
governing the use of the binary option are described elsewhere
|
||
[BINARY].
|
||
|
||
In terms of the protocol [PROT], a transfer encoding option specifies
|
||
that the contents octets of an associated AttributeValue or
|
||
AssertionValue OCTET STRING are a complete encoding of the relevant
|
||
value according to the encoding method specified by the option.
|
||
|
||
Where a transfer encoding option is present in an attribute
|
||
description the associated attribute values or assertion value MUST
|
||
be encoded according to the encoding method corresponding to the
|
||
option. Note that it is possible for a syntax to be defined such
|
||
that its LDAP-specific encoding is exactly the same as its encoding
|
||
according to some transfer encoding option (e.g., the LDAP-specific
|
||
encoding might be defined to be the same as the BER encoding).
|
||
|
||
Transfer encoding options are mutually exclusive. An attribute
|
||
description SHALL NOT contain more than one transfer encoding option,
|
||
and SHALL NOT contain both a transfer encoding option and the binary
|
||
option.
|
||
|
||
Transfer encoding options are not tagging options [MODELS] so the
|
||
presence of a transfer encoding option does not specify an attribute
|
||
subtype. An attribute description containing a transfer encoding
|
||
option references exactly the same attribute as the same attribute
|
||
description without the transfer encoding option. The
|
||
supertype/subtype relationships of attributes with tagging options
|
||
are not altered in any way by the presence or absence of transfer
|
||
encoding options.
|
||
|
||
An attribute description SHALL be treated as unrecognized if it
|
||
contains a transfer encoding option and the syntax of the attribute
|
||
does not have an associated ASN.1 type [SYNTAX], or if the nominated
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 4]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
encoding is not supported for that type.
|
||
|
||
The presence or absence of a transfer encoding option only affects
|
||
the transfer of attribute and assertion values in protocol; servers
|
||
store any particular attribute value in a single format of their
|
||
choosing.
|
||
|
||
4. Defined Transfer Encoding Options
|
||
|
||
The attribute option string "transfer-ber" specifies that the
|
||
associated attribute values or assertion value are (to be) encoded
|
||
according to the Basic Encoding Rules [X690] of ASN.1. This option
|
||
is similar to the binary option [BINARY], however servers are more
|
||
restricted in when they can use "transfer-ber" which leads to more
|
||
predictability in the results returned to clients who request
|
||
"transfer-ber".
|
||
|
||
The attribute option string "transfer-der" specifies that the
|
||
associated attribute values or assertion value are (to be) encoded
|
||
according to the Distinguished Encoding Rules [X690] of ASN.1.
|
||
|
||
The attribute option string "transfer-gser" specifies that the
|
||
associated attribute values or assertion value are (to be) encoded
|
||
according to the Generic String Encoding Rules (GSER) [RFC3641].
|
||
|
||
The attribute option string "transfer-rxer" specifies that the
|
||
associated attribute values or assertion value are (to be) encoded as
|
||
an XML document [XML]. The [local name] of the [document element] of
|
||
the document information item representing the associated value SHALL
|
||
be the identifier of the NamedType [X680] in the LDAP ASN.1
|
||
specification [PROT] defining the associated attribute value or
|
||
assertion value, or "item" if the associated value isn't in a
|
||
NamedType. This means:
|
||
|
||
- for an AttributeValue the identifier is "value" in every case,
|
||
|
||
- for an AssertionValue in an AttributeValueAssertion the identifier
|
||
is "assertionValue",
|
||
|
||
- for an AssertionValue in a SubstringFilter the identifier is
|
||
"initial", "any" or "final", as appropriate,
|
||
|
||
- for an AssertionValue in a MatchingRuleAssertion the identifier is
|
||
"matchValue".
|
||
|
||
The [namespace name] of the [document element] SHALL have no value.
|
||
The content of the [document element] is the Robust XML Encoding
|
||
Rules (RXER) [RXER] encoding of the associated attribute or assertion
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 5]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
value. Note that the enclosing element for the RXER encoding has the
|
||
form it would take in an XLDAP operation [XLDAP].
|
||
|
||
Note that, like all attribute options, the strings representing
|
||
transfer encoding options are case insensitive.
|
||
|
||
All future registrations of option strings for transfer encoding
|
||
options should use the "transfer-" prefix so that LDAP clients and
|
||
servers can recognize that an option is a transfer encoding option
|
||
even though the particular encoding rules may be unrecognized.
|
||
|
||
5. Attributes Returned in a Search
|
||
|
||
An LDAP search request [PROT] contains a list of the attributes (the
|
||
requested attributes list) to be returned from each entry matching
|
||
the search filter. An attribute description in the requested
|
||
attributes list also implicitly requests all subtypes of the
|
||
attribute type in the attribute description, whether through
|
||
attribute subtyping or attribute tagging option subtyping [MODELS].
|
||
|
||
The requested attributes list MAY contain attribute descriptions with
|
||
a transfer encoding option, but MUST NOT contain two attribute
|
||
descriptions with the same attribute type and the same tagging
|
||
options (even if only one of them has a transfer encoding option). A
|
||
transfer encoding option in an attribute description in the requested
|
||
attributes list implicitly applies to the subtypes of the attribute
|
||
type in the attribute description.
|
||
|
||
If the list of attributes in a search request is empty, or contains
|
||
the special attribute description string "*", then all user
|
||
attributes are requested to be returned.
|
||
|
||
In general, it is possible for a particular attribute to be
|
||
explicitly requested by an attribute description and/or implicitly
|
||
requested by the attribute descriptions of one or more of its
|
||
supertypes. In such cases the effective transfer encoding being
|
||
requested for a particular attribute is determined by the transfer
|
||
encoding option (or lack thereof) in the most specific attribute
|
||
description in the requested attributes list that applies to the
|
||
attribute.
|
||
|
||
An applicable attribute description with an actual attribute type is
|
||
more specific than the special attribute description string "*".
|
||
|
||
If the attribute type of one applicable attribute description is a
|
||
direct or indirect subtype of the attribute type in another
|
||
applicable attribute description then the former attribute
|
||
description is more specific than the latter attribute description.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 6]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
If two applicable attribute descriptions have the same attribute type
|
||
and the tagging options of one attribute description are a superset
|
||
of the tagging options of the other attribute description then the
|
||
former attribute description is more specific than the latter
|
||
attribute description.
|
||
|
||
Attributes MUST either be returned in the effective transfer encoding
|
||
requested, be returned with no attribute values, or be omitted from
|
||
the results. An attribute SHALL NOT be returned using an encoding
|
||
other than the effective transfer encoding requested.
|
||
|
||
Regardless of the encoding chosen, a particular attribute value is
|
||
returned at most once.
|
||
|
||
6. Syntaxes Requiring Binary Transfer
|
||
|
||
Certain syntaxes are required to be transferred in the BER encoded
|
||
form. These syntaxes are said to have a binary transfer requirement.
|
||
The Certificate, Certificate List, Certificate Pair and Supported
|
||
Algorithm syntaxes [PKI] are examples of syntaxes with a binary
|
||
transfer requirement. These syntaxes also have an additional
|
||
requirement that the exact BER encoding must be preserved. Note that
|
||
this is a property of the syntaxes themselves, and not a property of
|
||
the binary option or any of the transfer encoding options.
|
||
|
||
Transfer encoding options SHALL take precedence over the requirement
|
||
for binary transfer. For example, if the effective transfer encoding
|
||
requested is say "transfer-gser", then attribute values of a syntax
|
||
with a binary transfer requirement will be GSER encoded. In the
|
||
absence of a transfer encoding option the normal rules on binary
|
||
transfer and the use of the binary option SHALL apply.
|
||
|
||
7. Security Considerations
|
||
|
||
There is a requirement on some attribute syntaxes that the exact BER
|
||
encoding of values of that syntax be preserved. In general, a
|
||
transformation from the BER encoding into some other encoding (e.g.,
|
||
GSER) and back into the BER encoding will not necessarily reproduce
|
||
exactly the octets of the original BER encoding.
|
||
|
||
Applications needing the original BER encoding to be preserved, e.g.,
|
||
for the verification of digital signatures, MUST NOT request
|
||
attributes with such a requirement using a transfer encoding option.
|
||
These attributes MUST be requested explicitly or implicitly with the
|
||
binary option, or implicitly without the binary option (or any
|
||
transfer encoding option).
|
||
|
||
When interpreting security-sensitive fields, and in particular fields
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 7]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
used to grant or deny access, implementations MUST ensure that any
|
||
matching rule comparisons are done on the underlying abstract value,
|
||
regardless of the particular encoding used.
|
||
|
||
8. IANA Considerations
|
||
|
||
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is requested to update
|
||
the LDAP attribute description option registry [BCP64] as indicated
|
||
by the following templates:
|
||
|
||
Subject: Request for
|
||
LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
|
||
Option Name: transfer-ber
|
||
Family of Options: NO
|
||
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
||
Steven Legg <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>
|
||
Specification: RFC XXXX
|
||
Author/Change Controller: IESG
|
||
Comments:
|
||
|
||
Subject: Request for
|
||
LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
|
||
Option Name: transfer-der
|
||
Family of Options: NO
|
||
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
||
Steven Legg <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>
|
||
Specification: RFC XXXX
|
||
Author/Change Controller: IESG
|
||
Comments:
|
||
|
||
Subject: Request for
|
||
LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
|
||
Option Name: transfer-gser
|
||
Family of Options: NO
|
||
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
||
Steven Legg <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>
|
||
Specification: RFC XXXX
|
||
Author/Change Controller: IESG
|
||
Comments:
|
||
|
||
Subject: Request for
|
||
LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
|
||
Option Name: transfer-rxer
|
||
Family of Options: NO
|
||
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
||
Steven Legg <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>
|
||
Specification: RFC XXXX
|
||
Author/Change Controller: IESG
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 8]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
Comments:
|
||
|
||
9. References
|
||
|
||
9.1. Normative References
|
||
|
||
[KEYWORD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
|
||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
||
|
||
[BCP64] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
|
||
Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
|
||
Protcol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002.
|
||
|
||
[ROADMAP] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
|
||
(LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map",
|
||
draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt, a work in progress,
|
||
June 2004.
|
||
|
||
[MODELS] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Directory Information Models",
|
||
draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-xx.txt, a work in progress, June
|
||
2004.
|
||
|
||
[PROT] Sermersheim, J., "LDAP: The Protocol",
|
||
draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-xx.txt, a work in progress,
|
||
May 2004.
|
||
|
||
[SYNTAX] Legg, S. and K. Dally, "Lightweight Directory Access
|
||
Protocol (LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules",
|
||
draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-xx.txt, a work in progress,
|
||
May 2004.
|
||
|
||
[RFC3641] Legg, S., "Generic String Encoding Rules (GSER) for ASN.1
|
||
Types", RFC 3641, October 2003.
|
||
|
||
[BINARY] Legg, S., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
|
||
The Binary Encoding Option",
|
||
draft-legg-ldap-binary-xx.txt, a work in progress, June
|
||
2004.
|
||
|
||
[RXER] Legg, S. and D. Prager, "Robust XML Encoding Rules for
|
||
ASN.1 Types", draft-legg-xed-rxer-00.txt, a work in
|
||
progress, June 2004.
|
||
|
||
[X680] ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (07/02) | ISO/IEC 8824-1,
|
||
Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One
|
||
(ASN.1): Specification of basic notation.
|
||
|
||
[X690] ITU-T Recommendation X.690 (07/02) | ISO/IEC 8825-1,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 9]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
|
||
Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
|
||
Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
|
||
(DER).
|
||
|
||
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E. and
|
||
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third
|
||
Edition)", W3C Recommendation,
|
||
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204, February 2004.
|
||
|
||
[ISET] Cowan, J. and R. Tobin, "XML Information Set",
|
||
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-infoset-20011024,
|
||
October 2001.
|
||
|
||
9.2. Informative References
|
||
|
||
[XLDAP] Legg, S. and D. Prager, "The XML Enabled Directory:
|
||
Protocols", draft-legg-xed-protocols-xx.txt, a work in
|
||
progress, May 2004.
|
||
|
||
Author's Address
|
||
|
||
Steven Legg
|
||
Adacel Technologies Ltd.
|
||
250 Bay Street
|
||
Brighton, Victoria 3186
|
||
AUSTRALIA
|
||
|
||
Phone: +61 3 8530 7710
|
||
Fax: +61 3 8530 7888
|
||
Email: steven.legg@adacel.com.au
|
||
|
||
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
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 10]
|
||
|
||
INTERNET-DRAFT LDAP: Transfer Encoding Options June 16, 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
Changes in Draft 01
|
||
|
||
A transfer encoding option for RXER has been added.
|
||
|
||
Changes in Draft 02
|
||
|
||
The local name of the root element of the XML document representing
|
||
an attribute value encoded according to the transfer-rxer encoding
|
||
option has been changed from "item" to "value" to align with
|
||
revisions to the LDAP protocol specification [PROT].
|
||
|
||
The Directory XML Encoding Rules (DXER) have been renamed to the
|
||
Robust XML Encoding Rules (RXER).
|
||
|
||
Changes in Draft 03
|
||
|
||
The special attribute description strings that consist of the
|
||
asterisk character followed by a transfer encoding option, e.g.,
|
||
"*;transfer-ber", "*;transfer-gser", have been removed from this
|
||
specification. An LDAP control will be defined in a separate
|
||
document to provide equivalent functionality.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Legg Expires 16 December 2004 [Page 11]
|
||
|
||
|