idnits 2.17.1 draft-greenblatt-ldap-applusers-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-26) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == 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 2) being 60 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 2 pages -- Found 2 instances of the string 'FORMFEED[Page...' -- is this a case of missing nroff postprocessing? Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Abstract section. ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** There are 47 instances of lines with control characters in the document. ** 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 62: '... MUST applicationOID )...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. 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: 13 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Application Working Group Bruce Greenblatt 3 Internet Draft 4 5 Expires in six months 7 LDAP Object Class for Application Users 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 12 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 13 andits working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 14 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 17 months. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or made obsolete 18 by other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use 19 Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a 20 "working draft" or "work in progress". 22 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check 23 the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 24 Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net 25 (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific 26 Rim). 28 Distribution of this document is unlimited. 30 Abstract 32 This draft describes a means for an Application Server to indi- 33 cate in a directory entry that the directory object specified is a 34 user of that application server. 36 1. Mechanism 38 In working with various directory enabled applications and ser- 39 vices, it has been noticed that several of them presume the existence 40 of an auxiliary object class with no attributes that is used to 41 detect "their" users. For example, the foo application service will 42 use the fooUser object class, and attach this object class to all of 43 its user objects in the directory in order that it may later on 44 easily detect "its" users, by virtue of the fact that those users are 45 members of the fooUser object class. This fooUser object class is a 46 subclass of top with no additional attributes. This specification 47 intends to head off the day when a user would get one of these appli- 48 cationUser object class things attached to its directory object for 49 each application that it uses. This would mean that that object's 50 object class attribute would eventually have dozens of values, which 51 would in turn lessen the value of this attribute. 53 If numerous application services are going to want to do this 54 type of thing (which is perfectly valid), a general solution in the 55 schema should be provided. The following solution is given: 57 Use this auxiliary class to indicate that an object in the 58 directory is a user of your application that is identified by the 59 applicatioOID attribute. 61 ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.250.3.16 NAME 'applicationUserObject' SUP top AUXILIARY 62 MUST applicationOID ) 64 This multi-valued attribute holds the list of applications of which 65 the directory object is a user. 67 ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.250.3.17 NAME 'applcationOID' EQUALITY objectIdentifi- 68 erMatch SYNTAX 'OID' ) 70 Applications that wish to indicate that a directory object is a user 71 of their application should use the applicationUserObject and not 72 create a new auxiliary object class with no attributes for this indi- 73 cation. The use of auxiliary object classes without attributes is 74 deprecated. 76 Author's Address 78 Bruce Greenblatt 79 Novell 80 2180 Fortune Drive 81 San Jose, CA 95131 82 USA 83 Phone: +1-408-577-7688 84 Fax: +1-408-577-7605 85 Email: bgg@novell.com