idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document is more than 15 pages and seems to lack a Table of Contents. == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 11 longer pages, the longest (page 6) being 62 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 26 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([ROADMAP]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. == There are 106 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. == The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2247, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2247, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1996-08-01) -- 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 (May 2004) is 7285 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) == Missing Reference: 'LDAP-PKI' is mentioned on line 172, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC2798' is mentioned on line 194, but not defined -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2798' on line 203 == Missing Reference: 'AuthMeth' is mentioned on line 1125, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'AUTHMETH' is defined on line 1196, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'LDAP-CERT' is defined on line 1206, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO3166' -- No information found for draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-xx - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'Models' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3490 (Obsoleted by RFC 5890, RFC 5891) -- No information found for draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'ROADMAP' -- No information found for draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-xx - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'Syntaxes' -- No information found for draft-ietf-ldapbis-authmeth-xx - is the name correct? -- No information found for draft-klasen-ldap-x509certificate-schema-xx - is the name correct? -- No information found for draft-ietf-pkix-ldap-crl-schema-xx - is the name correct? -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3377 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510) -- No information found for draft-ietf-sasl-saslprep-xx - is the name correct? Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 16 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT K. Dally, Editor 2 Intended Category: Standard Track The MITRE Corp. 3 Expires: November 2004 May 2004 4 Updates: RFC 2247, RFC 2798 5 Obsoletes: RFC 2256 7 LDAP: Schema for User Applications 8 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 15 This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and 16 revision, submitted to the RFC Editor as a Standard Track document. 17 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical discussion of 18 this document will take place on the IETF LDAP Revision Working 19 Group (LDAPbis) mailing list . Please 20 send editorial comments directly to the author . 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 24 other groups may also distribute working documents as 25 Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a 26 maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by 27 other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use 28 Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 29 "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright 2003, The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 41 Abstract 43 This document is a integral part of the Lightweight Directory Access 44 Protocol (LDAP) technical specification [ROADMAP]. It provides a 45 technical specification of attribute types and object classes 46 intended for use by LDAP directory clients for many directory 47 services, such as, White Pages. These objects are widely used as a 48 basis for the schema in many LDAP directories. This document does 49 not cover attributes used for the administration of directory 50 servers, nor does it include directory objects defined for specific 51 uses in other documents. 53 Table of Contents 55 Status of this Memo 1 57 Copyright Notice 1 59 Abstract 1 61 Table of Contents 2 63 1. Introduction 4 64 1.1 Situation 4 65 1.2 Conventions 4 66 1.3 General Issues 4 67 1.4 Source 5 69 2. Attribute Types 5 70 2.1 businessCategory 5 71 2.2 c 5 72 2.3 cn 6 73 2.4 dc 6 74 2.5 description 6 75 2.6 destinationIndicator 7 76 2.7 distinguishedName 7 77 2.8 dnQualifier 7 78 2.9 enhancedSearchGuide 8 79 2.10 facsimileTelephoneNumber 8 80 2.11 generationQualifier 8 81 2.12 givenName 8 82 2.13 houseIdentifier 9 83 2.14 initials 9 84 2.15 internationalISDNNumber 9 85 2.16 l 9 86 2.17 member 10 87 2.18 name 10 88 2.19 o 10 89 2.20 ou 10 90 2.21 owner 11 91 2.22 physicalDeliveryOfficeName 11 92 2.23 postalAddress 11 93 2.24 postalCode 11 94 2.25 postOfficeBox 12 95 2.26 preferredDeliveryMethod 12 96 2.27 registeredAddress 12 97 2.28 roleOccupant 12 98 2.29 searchGuide 13 99 2.30 seeAlso 13 100 2.31 serialNumber 13 101 2.32 sn 13 102 2.33 st 14 103 2.34 street 14 104 2.35 telephoneNumber 14 105 2.36 teletexTerminalIdentifier 14 106 2.37 telexNumber 15 107 2.38 title 15 108 2.39 uid 15 109 2.40 uniqueMember 15 110 2.41 userPassword 16 111 2.42 x121Address 16 112 2.43 x500UniqueIdentifier 16 114 3. Object Classes 17 115 3.1 applicationProcess 17 116 3.2 country 17 117 3.3 device 17 118 3.4 groupOfNames 18 119 3.5 groupOfUniqueNames 18 120 3.6 locality 18 121 3.7 organization 19 122 3.8 organizationalPerson 19 123 3.9 organizationalRole 19 124 3.10 organizationalUnit 20 125 3.11 person 20 126 3.12 residentialPerson 20 128 4. IANA Considerations 21 130 5. Security Considerations 22 132 6. Acknowledgements 23 134 7. References 23 135 7.1 Normative 23 136 7.2 Informative 24 138 8. Author's Address 25 140 9. Full Copyright Statement 25 141 1. Introduction 143 This document provides an overview of attribute types and object 144 classes intended for use by Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 145 directory clients for many directory services, such as, White Pages. 146 Originally specified in the X.500 [X.500] documents, these objects 147 are widely used as a basis for the schema in many LDAP 148 directories. This document does not cover attributes used for the 149 administration of directory servers, nor does it include directory 150 objects defined for specific uses in other documents. 152 1.1 Situation 154 This document is a integral part of the LDAP technical specification 155 [ROADMAP] which obsoletes the previously defined LDAP technical 156 specification [RFC3377] in its entirety. In terms of RFC 2256, 157 Sections 6 and 8 of RFC 2256 are obsoleted by [Syntaxes]. Sections 158 5.1, 5.2, 7.1 and 7.2 of RFC 2256 are obsoleted by [Models]. The 159 remainder of RFC 2256 is obsoleted by this document. Section 3.4 of 160 this document supercedes the technical specification for the 'dc' 161 attribute type found in RFC 2247.[editor's note: Substitute 162 replacement RFC at time of publication.] The remainder of RFC 2247 163 remains in force. 165 This document updates RFC 2798 by replacing the informative 166 description of the 'uid' attribute type, with the definitive 167 description provided in Section 2.39 of this document. 169 A number of schema elements which were included in the previous 170 revision of the LDAP Technical Specification are not included in this 171 revision of LDAP. PKI-related schema elements are now specified in 172 [LDAP-PKI]. Unless reintroduced in future technical specifications, 173 the remainder are to be considered Historic. 175 1.2 Conventions 177 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 178 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 179 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 181 1.3 General Issues 183 This document references Syntaxes given in Section 3 of [Syntaxes] 184 and Matching Rules specified in Section 4 of [Syntaxes]. 186 The definitions of Attribute Types and Object Classes are written 187 using the ABNF form of AttributeTypeDescription and 188 ObjectClassDescription given in [Models]. Lines have been folded 189 for readability. 191 1.4 Source 193 The schema definitions in this document are based on those found in 194 the X.500-series [X.520] and [X.521], RFC 2798 [RFC2798] and 195 RFC 2247 [RFC2247], specifically: 197 Sections Source 198 ============ 199 ================== 200 2.1 - 2.3 X.520 [X.520] 201 2.4 RFC 2247 [RFC2247] 202 2.5 - 2.38 X.520 [X.520] 203 2.39 RFC 2798 [2798] 204 2.40 - 2.43 X.520 [X.520] 205 3.1 - 3.12 X.521 [X.521] 207 However, the descriptions in this document SHALL be considered 208 definitive for use in LDAP. 210 2. Attribute Types 212 The Attribute Types contained in this section hold user information. 214 There is no requirement that servers implement the following 215 attribute types: 217 searchGuide 218 teletexTerminalIdentifier 220 In fact, their use is greatly discouraged. 222 An LDAP server implementation SHOULD recognize the rest of the 223 attribute types described in this section. 225 2.1 businessCategory 227 The businessCategory attribute type describes the kinds of business 228 performed by an organization (e.g., "banking", "transportation"). 229 Each kind is one value of this multi-valued attribute. 231 ( 2.5.4.15 NAME 'businessCategory' 232 EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch 233 SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch 234 SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 ) 236 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 refers to the Directory String 237 syntax [Syntaxes]. 239 2.2 c 241 The c (countryName) attribute type contains a two-letter ISO 3166 242 [ISO3166] country code (e.g., "DE"). (Source: X.520) 243 ( 2.5.4.6 NAME 'c' 244 SUP name 245 SINGLE-VALUE ) 247 2.3 cn 249 The cn (commonName) attribute type contains names of an object 250 (e.g., "Martin K Smith", "Marty Smith", "printer12"). Each name is 251 one value of this multi-valued attribute. If the object corresponds 252 to a person, it is typically the person's full name. 253 (Source: X.520) 255 ( 2.5.4.3 NAME 'cn' 256 SUP name ) 258 2.4 dc 260 The dc (short for domainComponent) attribute type is a string 261 holding one component, a