idnits 2.17.1 draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-05.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? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard 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 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 70: '... The criticality MUST be included and ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 80: '... Implementations MUST return the error...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 88: '...uest is denied, the server MUST return...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 47 has weird spacing: '...ocument are...' == Line 67 has weird spacing: '...olValue pro...' == Line 133 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.) -- 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) -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 151 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '2' on line 156 looks like a reference Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Rob Weltman 3 INTERNET-DRAFT October, 2000 5 LDAP Proxied Authorization Control 6 draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-05.txt 8 Status of this Memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 11 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 13 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Task Force 14 (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups 15 may also distribute 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 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 23 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 25 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 28 Abstract 30 This document defines support for the Proxied Authorization Control. 31 Controls are an LDAP protocol version 3 extension, to allow passing 32 arbitrary control information along with a standard request to a 33 server, and to receive arbitrary information back with a standard 34 result. The Proxied Authorization Control allows a connection with 35 sufficient privileges to assume the identity of another entry for the 36 duration of an LDAP request. 38 1. Introduction 40 Version 3 of the LDAP protocol provides a means of supplying 41 arbitrary additional information along with a request to an LDAP 42 server, and receiving arbitrary additional response information. The 43 Control protocol extension is described in [1], section 4.1.12. This 44 document defines support for proxied authorization using the Control 45 mechanism. 47 The key words "MUST", "SHOULD", and "MAY" used in this document are 48 to be interpreted as described in [2]. 50 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL October 2000 52 2. Publishing support for the Proxied Authorization Control 54 Support for the Proxied Authorization Control is indicated by the 55 presence of the OID "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.12" in the 56 supportedExtensions attribute of a server's root DSE. 58 3. Proxied Authorization Control 60 This control may be included in any search, compare, modify, delete, 61 or modrdn request message as part of the controls field of the 62 LDAPMessage, as defined in [1]. 64 proxyAuthControl ::= SEQUENCE { 65 controlType 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.12, 66 criticality BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE, 67 controlValue proxyAuthValue 68 } 70 The criticality MUST be included and MUST be TRUE. 72 The controlValue contains the BER encoding of a DN used for 73 evaluating the requested rights: 75 proxyAuthValue::= SEQUENCE { 76 proxyDN LDAPDN 77 } 79 It is represented as a Sequence in order to allow future extensions. 80 Implementations MUST return the error code 81 unsupportedCriticalExtension in the event of unrecognized additional 82 elements in the sequence 84 4. Permission to execute as proxy 86 An LDAP server supporting the Proxied Authorization Control may 87 choose to honor or not honor a particular request. If the control is 88 supported but a particular request is denied, the server MUST return 89 the error code insufficientAccessRights. A typical implementation 90 will evaluate if the requester has proxy access rights at the base DN 91 of the request. If the requester has proxy access rights, and if the 92 proxy DN corresponds to a valid entry in the directory managed by the 93 server, the request will be honored. If the request is honored, it 94 will be executed as if submitted by the proxy identity. 96 During evaluation of a search request, an entry which would have been 97 returned for the search if submitted by the proxy identity directly 98 may not be returned if the server finds that the requester does not 99 have proxy rights to the entry, even if the entry is within the scope 100 of a search request under a base DN which does imply such rights. 101 This means that fewer results, or no results, may be returned 103 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL October 2000 105 compared to the case where the proxy identity issued the request 106 directly. An example of such a case may be a system with fine-grained 107 access control, where the proxy right requester has proxy rights at 108 the top of a search tree, but not at or below a point or points 109 within the tree. 111 5. Security Considerations 113 The Proxied Authorization Control method is subject to standard LDAP 114 security considerations. The control may be passed over a secure as 115 well as over an insecure channel. No additional confidential 116 information is passed in the control. 118 Note that the server is responsible for determining if a proxied 119 authorization request is to be honored. 121 6. Copyright 123 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. 125 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 126 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 127 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 128 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 129 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 130 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 131 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 132 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 133 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 134 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 135 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 136 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 137 English. 139 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 140 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 142 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 143 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 144 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 145 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 146 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 147 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 149 7. Bibliography 151 [1] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access 152 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 154 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL October 2000 156 [2] Bradner, Scott, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 157 Requirement Levels", draft-bradner-key-words-03.txt, January, 158 1997. 160 8. Author's Addresses 162 Rob Weltman 163 +1 650 461 1708 164 robw@worldspot.com 166 9. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-05.txt 168 The control does not apply to bind, unbind, or abandon operations. 170 10. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-04.txt 172 None 174 11. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-03.txt 176 None 178 12. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-02.txt 180 12.1 Renamed Control 182 The Control is now called Proxied Authorization Control, rather than 183 Proxied Authentication Control, to reflect that no authentication 184 occurs as a consequence of processing the Control. 186 12.2 Control envelope 188 Rather than containing an LDAPDN as the Control value, the Control 189 contains a Sequence (which contains an LDAPDN). This is to provide 190 for future extensions.