idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-asid-ldapv3-mime-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered 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 (2024-04-19) 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 the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction 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.) ** There are 10 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 23 has weird spacing: '...listing conta...' -- 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 (23 February 1996) is 10283 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 109 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '2' on line 113 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '3' on line 116 looks like a reference Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group M. Wahl 2 INTERNET-DRAFT ISODE Consortium 3 Expires in six months from 23 February 1996 4 Intended Category: Experimental 6 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol: 7 MIME-based Transport Mapping 8 10 1. Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 13 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 14 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 15 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 17 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 18 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 19 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 20 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 22 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 23 "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 2. Abstract 30 The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [1] is a mechanism for 31 clients to access a Directory service. Protocol mappings have been 32 defined for TCP, UDP and OSI Connection-Oriented Transport. This 33 document defines how LDAP may be represented using MIME Content Types, 34 so that it can be carried in SMTP or other protocols such as HTTP. 36 3. Specification 38 The application/ber-stream defined in [2] is used to encode LDAP for 39 transport in MIME. 41 The protocol is identified by an OBJECT IDENTIFIER based on TCP port 42 389 (assigned in RFC 1777). The content of the application/ber-stream 43 is the base64 representation of a BER encoding of a series of one or 44 more ASN.1 data values, each of type 45 Lightweight-Directory-Access-Protocol.LDAPMessage. 46 The subset of BER described in section 5 of [1] must be used when 47 encoding, and the values must be concatenated according to the LDAP 48 specification. 50 Quoted printable content transfer encoding must not be generated. 52 4. Request/Response Mechanisms 54 The client will produce a single content containing a series of 55 LDAPMessages. 57 The acceptable choices in the request content for LDAPMessage are 58 bindRequest, searchRequest, modifyRequest, addRequest, delRequest, 59 modDNRequest, compareRequest, newDelRequest, extendedReq and 60 unbindRequest. Message Ids must be unique across all requests in a 61 content, and no requests must follow an unbindRequest. A Content-ID 62 must be generated and associated with this content. 64 The server will parse this content and process each request 65 individually and in order. If a bindRequest fails the server should 66 process no following requests. In addition, the server should stop 67 processing following an unbindRequest. For all other operations the 68 server should continue to process even if a request fails. 70 The server will respond to this content with another 71 application/ber-stream content, containing a series of LDAPMessages. 72 The references field of the Content-Type contains the Content-Id of 73 the request. 75 The acceptable choices in the response content for LDAPMessage are 76 bindRespBasic, bindRespExtd, searchResEntry, searchResDone, 77 searchResRef, modifyResponse, addResponse, delResponse, modDNResponse, 78 compareResponse and extendedResp. There will typically be one response 79 per request, except that there may be more than one response to the 80 searchRequest, and there is no response to an unbindRequest. 82 4.1. Mapping to SMTP 84 The client will produce an electronic mail message containing a single 85 content, the application/ber-stream of the request, and mail it to an 86 automated responder of the server. 88 The server will reply to the requestor with an electronic mail message 89 containing a single content, the application/ber-stream of the 90 response, and mail it to the requesting address. 92 4.2. Mapping to HTTP 94 The client will post a request to the server in the HTTP [3] protocol. 95 The POST includes an Entity-Body of the application/ber-stream content 96 of the request. As the response will be returned over the same TCP 97 connection a Content-ID need not be generated. 99 The server will reply to this request with status 200 and include 100 another content, the application/ber-stream of the response. The 101 references field should be absent if Content-ID was not in the request. 103 5. Security Considerations 105 Security considerations are not currently discussed in this memo. 107 6. Bibliography 109 [1] M. Wahl, W. Yeong, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory 110 Access Protocol (Version 3)", INTERNET-DRAFT, 111 . 113 [2] M.Wahl, "A MIME Content-Type for ASN.1 PDUs", INTERNET-DRAFT, 114 . 116 [3] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, H. Frystyk, "Hypertext Transport 117 Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", INTERNET-DRAFT, 118 . 120 7. Author's Address 122 Mark Wahl 123 ISODE Consortium Inc. 124 3925 West Braker Lane #333 125 Austin TX 78759 126 USA 128 M.Wahl@isode.com 129 +1 (512) 305-0280