mirror/openldap
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap.git synced 2024-12-21 03:10:25 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
5fa0a651f5
openldap/doc/drafts/draft-masarati-ldap-whatfailed-xx.txt
Pierangelo Masarati e552df6014 both I.D.s are now submitted to IETF
2008-11-19 13:11:57 +00:00

673 lines
13 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 P. Masarati
Internet-Draft Politecnico di Milano
Intended status: Standards Track November 19, 2008
Expires: May 23, 2009
LDAP "What Failed?" Control
draft-masarati-ldap-whatfailed-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2009.
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
Abstract
This document describes the LDAP "What Failed?" control. This
control allows DUAs to request, in response to a failed operation
request, the object identifier of those extensions that caused the
operation to fail.
Table of Contents
1. Background and Intended Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. LDAP "What Failed?" Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Control Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Control Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Control Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Object Identifier Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
1. Background and Intended Use
The LDAP Protocol [RFC4510] is extensible. Extensions include
controls, extended requests and extensions related to other aspects
of the protocol, for example those described in [RFC4526], [RFC4529]
and more.
Operations may fail for different reasons. The resultCode may help
in determining the reason of a failure. The (optional)
diagnosticsMessage fields of a LDAPResponse could also be of help.
However, according to [RFC4511], implementations MUST NOT rely on the
returned values, which are simply intended to be presented as are to
human users.
In case of failure related to the inability to process a control
marked as critical in a request, the specific resultCode
unavailableCriticalExtension is returned. In case of failure related
to an unrecognized extendedReq, the generic resultCode protocolError
is returned. Failures related to handling other extensions may
result in other generic resultCode values.
As a consequence, DUAs may be unable to exactly determine what
extension, if any, caused a failure. The "What Failed?" control
represents a means for the DSA to inform DUAs about what specific
extensions, if any, caused an error notified by the DSA.
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 [RFC2119].
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
2. LDAP "What Failed?" Control
2.1. Control Semantics
The presence of the "What Failed?" LDAP control in a LDAP request
indicates that the DUA, in case of error, wishes to receive detailed
information about what extension, if any, caused the error.
The criticality of the control in the request SHOULD be FALSE.
According to the semantics of the criticality field as indicated in
[RFC4511], this ensures that in case the control is not recognized by
the DSA, it does not cause itself an error.
The presence of this control in a request does not guarantee that the
DSA will return detailed information about what extensions caused an
error. Considering the requirement on the criticality of the
control, the DSA MAY simply choose to ignore the control. The DSA
MAY hide information about failure in handling an extension to
prevent disclosure of other information. The DSA MAY choose to
notify an error as soon as it is detected, instead of proceed
checking its ability to handle any other extension present in a
request.
Implementations may choose to check the validity of extensions,
including controls, as soon as they are parsed. As a consequence, a
critical control might result in an error before thw "What Failed?"
control request is parsed. Implementations SHOULD check anyway the
presence of this control, unless they detect that the remaining part
of the request is malformed. Clients SHOULD NOT rely on any specific
ordering of controls handling when requesting the "What Failed?"
control.
Servers implementing this technical specification SHOULD publish the
object identifier whatFailed-oid (IANA assigned; see Section 5) as a
value of the 'supportedControl' attribute [RFC4512] in their root
DSE.
2.2. Control Request
The controlType is whatFailed-oid (IANA assigned; see Section 5); the
controlValue MUST be absent; the criticality SHOULD be FALSE.
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
2.3. Control Response
The controlType is whatFailed-oid (IANA assigned; see Section 5); the
controlValue is:
controlValue ::= SET OF oid LDAPOID
If the set of extension OID is empty, the control is omitted from the
response. The criticality MUST be FALSE.
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
3. Implementation Notes
The "What Failed?" LDAP Control is implemented in OpenLDAP software
using the temporary OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.666.5.17 under OpenLDAP's
experimental OID arc.
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
4. Security Considerations
Implementations MUST take measures to prevent the disclosure of
sensible information whenever this may result from disclosing what
extension caused an error. This can consist in excluding the OID of
specific extensions from the controlValue in the response, or in
entirely omitting the control in the response.
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Object Identifier Registration
It is requested that IANA register upon Standards Action an LDAP
Object Identifier for use in this technical specification.
Subject: Request for LDAP OID Registration
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Pierangelo Masarati <ando@OpenLDAP.org>
Specification: (I-D)
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments:
Identifies the LDAP "What Failed?" Control request
and response
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
6. Acknowledgments
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4510] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510,
June 2006.
[RFC4511] Sermersheim, J., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.
[RFC4512] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Directory Information Models", RFC 4512,
June 2006.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4526] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) Absolute True and False Filters", RFC 4526,
June 2006.
[RFC4529] Zeilenga, K., "Requesting Attributes by Object Class in
the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol", RFC 4529,
June 2006.
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
Author's Address
Pierangelo Masarati
Politecnico di Milano
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale
via La Masa 34
Milano 20156
IT
Phone: +39 02 2399 8309
Fax: +39 02 2399 8334
Email: ando@OpenLDAP.org
URI: http://www.aero.polimi.it/masarati/
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LDAP WHATFAILED November 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Masarati Expires May 23, 2009 [Page 12]
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink