idnits 2.17.1 draft-findlay-ldap-groupofentries-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 185. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 196. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 203. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 209. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 231 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([2]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 93: '... MUST ( member $...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 95: '... MAY ( businessCategory $...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 115: '... MUST ( cn )...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 116: '... MAY ( member $...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 13, 2007) is 6063 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Findlay 3 Internet-Draft Skills 1st Ltd 4 Expires: March 16, 2008 September 13, 2007 6 The LDAP groupOfEntries object class 7 draft-findlay-ldap-groupofentries-00 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 12 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 13 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 14 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 16, 2008. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 38 Abstract 40 This memo describes the LDAP groupOfEntries object class which is a 41 replacement for the existing groupOfNames class. The new class 42 permits the creation of empty groups. 44 If approved as a Standards Track document, this document will update 45 RFC4519 [2] 47 Document Intent 49 This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and 50 revision, submitted to the RFC Editor as a Standards Track document. 51 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical discussion of this 52 document will take place on the IETF LDAP Extensions mailing list 53 . Please send editorial comments directly to the 54 author 56 1. Introduction 58 A groupOfNames object class has existed since the earliest X.521 [1] 59 standard. It has an identical definition in LDAP (RFC4519 [2]). The 60 class is used to define entries holding DN-valued member attributes, 61 each value pointing to an entry that represents a single member of 62 the group being described, or to another entry of type groupOfNames. 64 groupOfNames is a structural object class, so it is often the only 65 class used in the definition of group objects. 67 Experience has shown that the definition of groupOfNames causes 68 difficulties in practice. In particular, the fact that 'member' is a 69 mandatory attribute means that it is not possible to create an empty 70 group or to delete the last member from a group. This leads to 71 artificial tricks such as making every group a member of itself, or 72 adding a dummy member to every group when it is created. These 73 tricks in turn make the management of groups more complex and prone 74 to error. Groups are commonly used to control access to resources, 75 so management errors can lead to security risks. 77 There does not appear to be any good reason for the 'member' 78 attribute to be mandatory. This memo describes a new object class 79 called groupOfEntries that is equivalent to groupOfNames in all other 80 respects but which makes 'member' an optional attribute. 82 2. The existing groupOfNames object class 84 RFC4519 [2] contains this definition: 86 The 'groupOfNames' object class is the basis of an entry that 87 represents a set of named objects including information related to 88 the purpose or maintenance of the set. (Source: X.521 [1]) 90 ( 2.5.6.9 NAME 'groupOfNames' 91 SUP top 92 STRUCTURAL 93 MUST ( member $ 94 cn ) 95 MAY ( businessCategory $ 96 seeAlso $ 97 owner $ 98 ou $ 99 o $ 100 description ) ) 102 The inclusion of 'member' in the 'MUST' section of the definition 103 prevents empty groups from being created. 105 3. The groupOfEntries object class 107 The 'groupOfEntries' object class is the basis of an entry that 108 represents a set of named objects including information related to 109 the purpose or maintenance of the set. It should be used in 110 preference to the 'groupOfNames' object class. 112 ( 1.2.826.0.1.3458854.2.1.1.1 NAME 'groupOfEntries' 113 SUP top 114 STRUCTURAL 115 MUST ( cn ) 116 MAY ( member $ 117 businessCategory $ 118 seeAlso $ 119 owner $ 120 ou $ 121 o $ 122 description ) ) 124 This object class allows groups to be empty. In all other respects 125 it behaves like the groupOfNames object class. 127 The OID assigned to this object class is delegated by Skills 1st Ltd. 129 4. Effect on other documents 131 This draft deprecates the use of the groupOfNames object class in 132 RFC4519 [2] and replaces it with the groupOfEntries class. 134 5. IANA considerations 136 It is requested that IANA register upon Standards Action the 137 groupOfEntries Object Identifier Descriptor and its associated OID. 139 6. Security considerations 141 Groups are commonly used to define access permissions to directory 142 entries and resources in other services. Allowing for empty groups 143 avoids the risks associated with leaving a dummy placeholder member 144 in group entries, so security is improved. 146 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 148 The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Michael 149 Stroeder to the first draft of this document. 151 7. Informative References 153 [1] "The Directory: Selected Object Classes", ITU-T 154 Recommendation X.521, March 1988. 156 [2] "LDAP: Schema for User Applications", RFC 4519, June 2006. 158 Author's Address 160 Andrew Findlay 161 Skills 1st Ltd 162 2 Cedar Chase 163 Taplow 164 Maidenhead SL6 0EU 165 GB 167 Phone: +44 1628 782565 168 Email: andrew.findlay@skills-1st.co.uk 169 URI: http://www.skills-1st.co.uk/ 171 Full Copyright Statement 173 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 175 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 176 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 177 retain all their rights. 179 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 180 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 181 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 182 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 183 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 184 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 185 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 187 Intellectual Property 189 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 190 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 191 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 192 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 193 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 194 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 195 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 196 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 198 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 199 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 200 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 201 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 202 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 203 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 205 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 206 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 207 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 208 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 209 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 211 Acknowledgment 213 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 214 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).