idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lsd-server-finding-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 (2024-03-28) 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 -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** 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 2 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 3 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. 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.) -- The document date (January 1998) is 9569 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1777 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 3494) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2052 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 2782) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '3' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '4' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '6' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '7' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '8' Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet-Draft Ryan Moats 3 draft-ietf-lsd-server-finding-00.txt AT&T 4 Expires in six months January 1998 6 LDAP Servers Finding Other LDAP Servers 7 Filename: draft-ietf-lsd-server-finding-00.txt 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 13 areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also 14 distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 17 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 18 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- 19 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work 20 in progress.'' 22 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check 23 the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet- 24 Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net 25 (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East 26 Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 28 Abstract 30 This document discusses methods available for an LDAP server to 31 discover other LDAP servers. It is based on previous and ongoing 32 IETF work. 34 1. Introduction 36 The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [1] can be used to 37 build "islands" of servers that are not a priori tied into a single 38 Directory Information Tree (DIT.) Here, it is necessary to determine 39 how an LDAP server can discover the existence of other LDAP servers. 40 This documents discusses the methods available based on current and 41 previous IETF work. 43 2. Server Discovery of Other Servers 45 A LDAP server may always hae a list of other servers configured into 46 it by an administrator. Additionally, a LDAP server discovers other 47 LDAP servers by either using a proposed naming scheme and the DNS or 48 by using an additional server to server indexing protocol. Once a 49 server discovers other servers it can collect information for 50 returning LDAP v3 referrals (as LDAP URLs) to clients. 52 2.1. Discovery via DNS 54 An LDAP server may either be registered using SRV records [2] or, if 55 the server uses the "dc-naming" scheme ([3, 4]), it can attempt to 56 find the server managing its parent node by using DNS to look for the 57 LDAP server for the parent domain. Additionally, an LDAP server may 58 be named using a common alias as described in [5]. In either case, 59 it is necessary to include information about the root of the LDAP 60 server's subtree by using DNS TXT records as discussed in [6]. 62 As an example, consider a server with the RDN "dc=foo,dc=bar,dc=com" 63 (i.e. in domain foo.bar.com). To find its parent server, it would 64 first look for a SRV record for ldap.tcp.bar.com and then follow [5] 65 by looking for ldap.bar.com. If any of these records were found, it 66 would then look for a TXT record for the same domain to determine the 67 root of its parent server's sub-tree. 69 2.2. Discovery via the Common Indexing Protocol [7, 8] 71 Independent of what DIT is being managed, LDAP servers could export 72 index information about their portion of the tree via the Common 73 Indexing Protocol. This requires some a priori discovery and set up 74 of the index mesh and the inclusion of the root DN of the server's 75 portion of the tree in the exported index information. 77 3. Security Considerations 79 Since this draft only summarizes available methods, it adds no 80 additional security considerations to those inherent in the 81 referenced documents. Implementors are strongly recommended to read 82 and follow the security considerations provided in the referenced 83 documents. 85 4. Acknowledgments 87 Many thanks to the members of the LSD working group, for their 88 contributions to previous drafts. The work described in this document 89 is partially supported by the National Science Foundation, 90 Cooperative Agreement NCR-9218179. 92 5. References 94 Request For Comments (RFC) and Internet Drafts documents are 95 available from and numerous mirror 96 sites. 98 [1] W. Yeong, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access 99 Protocol," RFC 1777, March 1995. 101 [2] A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie, "A DNS RR for specifying the loca- 102 tion of services (DNS SRV)," RFC 2052, October 1996. 104 [3] A. Grimstad et al., "Naming Plan for an Internet Directory 105 Service," Internet Draft (work in progress), March 19, 1997. 107 [4] S. Kille et al., "Using Domains in LDAP Distinguished 108 Names," Internet Draft (work in progress), August 1997. 110 [5] M. Hamilton, R. Wright, "Use of DNS Aliases for Network Ser- 111 vices," RFC 2219 (Also BCP 17), October, 1997. 113 [6] R. Moats, M. Hamilton, "Advertising Services," Internet 114 Draft (work in progress), June 1997. 116 [7] M. Mealling, J. Allen, "MIME Object Definitions for the Com- 117 mon Indexing Protocol(CIP)," Internet Draft (work in 118 progress), June 11, 1997. 120 [8] M. Mealling, J. Allen, "The Architecture of the Common 121 Indexing Protocol (CIP)," Internet Draft (work in progress), 122 June 11, 1997. 124 6. Author's address 126 Ryan Moats 127 AT&T 128 15621 Drexel Circle 129 Omaha, NE 68135-2358 130 USA 132 Phone: +1 402 894-9456 133 EMail: jayhawk@att.com