idnits 2.17.1 draft-weltman-ldapv3-auth-response-09.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 seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** 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? Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC3377], [LDAPPROT]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** 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 -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? RFC 2119 keyword, line 75: '... This control MAY be included in any...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 78: '... MUST provide the control with each ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 85: '... This control MAY be included in any...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 124: '...Control. The bind response MAY include...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 174 has weird spacing: '...for the purpo...' -- 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 (April 2003) is 7682 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC3377' is mentioned on line 35, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 3377 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510) == Missing Reference: 'LDAPv3' is mentioned on line 48, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'LDAPV3' is defined on line 192, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3377 (ref. 'LDAPV3') (Obsoleted by RFC 4510) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2251 (ref. 'LDAPPROT') (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4511, RFC 4512, RFC 4513) -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-bradner-key-words is -02, but you're referring to -03. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2829 (ref. 'AUTH') (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4513) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2222 (ref. 'SASL') (Obsoleted by RFC 4422, RFC 4752) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-zeilenga-ldap-authzid-03 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2252 (ref. 'LDAPATTRS') (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4512, RFC 4517, RFC 4523) -- Duplicate reference: RFC3377, mentioned in 'IANALDAP', was also mentioned in 'LDAPV3'. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3377 (ref. 'IANALDAP') (Obsoleted by RFC 4510) Summary: 13 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Rob Weltman 3 Intended Category: Informational Mark Smith 4 Netscape Communications Corp. 5 Mark Wahl 6 Sun Microsystems, Inc. 7 April 2003 9 LDAP Authorization Identity Request and Response Controls 10 draft-weltman-ldapv3-auth-response-09.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 15 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Task Force 18 (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups 19 may also distribute working documents as Internet-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 Abstract 34 This document extends the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 35 (LDAP) [RFC3377] bind [LDAPPROT] operation with a mechanism for 36 requesting and returning the authorization identity it establishes. 37 Specifically, this document defines the Authorization Identity 38 Request and Response controls for use with the Bind operation. 40 1. Introduction 42 This document defines support for the Authorization Identity Request 43 Control and the Authorization Identity Response Control for 44 requesting and returning the authorization established in a bind 45 operation. The Authorization Identity Request Control may be 46 submitted by a client in a bind request if authenticating with 47 version 3 of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) 48 protocol [LDAPv3]. In the LDAP server's bind response, it may then 49 include an Authorization Identity Response Control. The response 50 control contains the identity assumed by the client. This is useful 51 when there is a mapping step or other indirection during the bind, so 52 that the client can be told what LDAP identity was granted. Client 53 authentication with certificates is the primary situation where this 54 applies. Also, some Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) 55 authentication mechanisms may not involve the client explicitly 56 providing a DN, or may result in an authorization identity which is 57 different from the authentication identity provided by the client 58 [AUTH]. 60 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" 61 used in this document are to be interpreted as described in 62 [RFCKeyWords]. 64 2. Publishing support for the Authorization Identity Request Control 65 and the Authorization Identity Response Control 67 Support for the Authorization Identity Request Control and the 68 Authorization Identity Response Control is indicated by the presence 69 of the Object Identifiers (OIDs) 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16 and 70 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15, respectively, in the supportedControl 71 attribute [LDAPATTRS] of a server's root DSE. 73 3. Authorization Identity Request Control 75 This control MAY be included in any bind request which specifies 76 protocol version 3, as part of the controls field of the LDAPMessage 77 as defined in [LDAPPROT]. In a multi-step bind operation, the client 78 MUST provide the control with each bind request. 80 The controlType is "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16" and the controlValue is 81 absent. 83 4. Authorization Identity Response Control 85 This control MAY be included in any final bind response where the 86 first bind request of the bind operation included an Authorization 87 Identity Request Control as part of the controls field of the 88 LDAPMessage as defined in [LDAPPROT]. 90 The controlType is "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15". If the bind request 91 succeeded and resulted in an identity (not anonymous), the 92 controlValue contains the authorization identity (authzId), as 93 defined in [AUTH] section 9, granted to the requestor. If the bind 94 request resulted in an anonymous association, the controlValue field 95 is a string of zero length. If the bind request resulted in more than 96 one authzId, the primary authzId is returned in the controlValue 97 field. 99 The control is only included in a bind response if the resultCode for 100 the bind operation is success. 102 If the server requires confidentiality protections to be in place 103 prior to use of this control (see Security Considerations), the 104 server reports failure to have adequate confidentiality protections 105 in place by returning the confidentialityRequired result code. 107 If the client has insufficient access rights to the requested 108 authorization information, the server reports this by returning the 109 insufficientAccessRights result code. 111 Identities presented by a client as part of the authentication 112 process may be mapped by the server to one or more authorization 113 identities. The bind response control can be used to retrieve the 114 primary authzId. 116 For example, during client authentication with certificates [AUTH], a 117 client may possess more than one certificate and not be able to 118 determine which one was ultimately selected for authentication to the 119 server. The subject DN field in the selected certificate may not 120 correspond exactly to a DN in the directory, but rather have gone 121 through a mapping process controlled by the server. On completing the 122 certificate-based authentication, the client may issue a SASL [SASL] 123 bind request, specifying the EXTERNAL mechanism and including an 124 Authorization Identity Request Control. The bind response MAY include 125 an Authorization Identity Response Control indicating the DN in the 126 server's DIT which the certificate was mapped to. 128 5. Alternative Approach with Extended Operation 130 The LDAP "Who am I?" [AUTHZID] extended operation provides a 131 mechanism to query the authorization identity associated with a bound 132 connection. Using an extended operation as opposed to a bind response 133 control allows a client to learn the authorization identity after the 134 bind has has established integrity and data confidentiality 135 protections. The disadvantages of the extended operation approach are 136 coordination issues between "Who am I?" requests, bind requests, and 137 other requests, and that an extra operation is required to learn the 138 authorization identity. For multithreaded or high bandwidth server 139 application environments, the bind response approach may be 140 preferable. 142 6. Security Considerations 144 The Authorization Identity Request and Response Controls are subject 145 to standard LDAP security considerations. The controls may be passed 146 over a secure as well as over an insecure channel. They are not 147 protected by security layers negotiated by the bind operation. 149 The response control allows for an additional authorization identity 150 to be passed. In some deployments, these identities may contain 151 confidential information which require privacy protection. In such 152 deployments, a security layer should be established prior to issuing 153 a bind request with an Authorization Identity Request Control. 155 7. IANA Considerations 157 The OIDs 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16 and 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15 are 158 reserved for the Authorization Identity Request and Response 159 Controls, respectively. The Authorization Identity Request Control is 160 to be registered as an LDAP Protocol Mechanism [IANALDAP]. 162 8. Copyright 164 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 166 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 167 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 168 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 169 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 170 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 171 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 172 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 173 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 174 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 175 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 176 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 177 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 178 English. 180 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 181 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 183 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 184 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 185 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 186 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 187 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 188 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 190 9. References 192 [LDAPV3] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access 193 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September 194 2002. 196 [LDAPPROT] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access 197 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 199 [RFCKeyWords] Bradner, Scott, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 200 Requirement Levels", draft-bradner-key-words-03.txt, January 201 1997. 203 [AUTH] M. Wahl, H. Alvestrand, J. Hodges, RL "Bob" Morgan, 204 "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000. 206 [SASL] J. Myers, "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL", 207 RFC 2222, October 1997. 209 [AUTHZID] K. Zeilenga, "LDAP 'Who am I?' Operation", draft-zeilenga- 210 ldap-authzid-03.txt, April 2002 212 [LDAPATTRS] M. Wahl, A. Coulbeck, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight 213 Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", 214 RFC 2252, December 1997 216 [IANALDAP] J. Hodges, R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access 217 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September 218 2002 220 10. Author's Addresses 222 Rob Weltman 223 Netscape Communications Corp. 224 360 W. Caribbean Drive 225 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 226 USA 227 +1 650 937-3194 228 rweltman@netscape.com 230 Mark Smith 231 Netscape Communications Corp. 232 360 W. Caribbean Drive 233 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 234 USA 235 +1 650 937-3477 236 mcs@netscape.com 238 Mark Wahl 239 Sun Microsystems, Inc. 240 911 Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite 4140 241 Austin, TX 78759 242 USA 243 +1 512 231 7224 244 Mark.Wahl@sun.com