idnits 2.17.1 draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-06.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 abstract seems to contain references ([AUTH]), 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. RFC 2119 keyword, line 68: '... The criticality MUST be included and ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 77: '...uest is denied, the server MUST return...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 48 has weird spacing: '...ocument are...' == Line 124 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? 'AUTH' on line 149 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'LDAPV3' on line 142 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'KEYWORDS' on line 145 looks like a reference Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Rob Weltman 3 INTERNET-DRAFT November, 2000 5 LDAP Proxied Authorization Control 6 draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-06.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 client to request 35 that an operation be processed under a provided authorization 36 identity [AUTH] instead of as the current authorization identity 37 associated with the connection. 39 1. Introduction 41 Version 3 of the LDAP protocol provides a means of supplying 42 arbitrary additional information along with a request to an LDAP 43 server, and receiving arbitrary additional response information. The 44 Control protocol extension is described in [LDAPV3], section 4.1.12. 45 This document defines support for proxied authorization using the 46 Control mechanism. 48 The key words "MUST", "SHOULD", and "MAY" used in this document are 49 to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. 51 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL November 2000 53 2. Publishing support for the Proxied Authorization Control 55 Support for the Proxied Authorization Control is indicated by the 56 presence of the OID "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18" in the 57 supportedControl attribute of a server's root DSE. 59 3. Proxied Authorization Control 61 This control may be included in any search, compare, modify, add, 62 delete, modDN or extended operation request message as part of the 63 controls field of the LDAPMessage, as defined in [LDAPV3]. 65 The controlType of the proxied authorization control is 66 "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18". 68 The criticality MUST be included and MUST be TRUE. 70 The control value is the BER encoded authorization identity to use 71 for the request. 73 4. Permission to execute as proxy 75 An LDAP server supporting the Proxied Authorization Control may 76 choose to honor or not honor a particular request. If the control is 77 supported but a particular request is denied, the server MUST return 78 the error code insufficientAccessRights. 80 A typical implementation will evaluate if the requester has proxy 81 access rights at the base DN of the request. If the requester has 82 proxy access rights, and if the authorization identity is recognized 83 by the server, the request will be honored. If the request is 84 honored, it will be executed as if submitted by the proxy identity. 86 During evaluation of a search request, an entry which would have been 87 returned for the search if submitted by the proxy identity directly 88 may not be returned if the server finds that the requester does not 89 have proxy rights to the entry, even if the entry is within the scope 90 of a search request under a base DN which does imply such rights. 91 This means that fewer results, or no results, may be returned 92 compared to the case where the proxy identity issued the request 93 directly. An example of such a case may be a system with fine-grained 94 access control, where the proxy right requester has proxy rights at 95 the top of a search tree, but not at or below a point or points 96 within the tree. 98 5. Security Considerations 99 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL November 2000 101 The Proxied Authorization Control method is subject to standard LDAP 102 security considerations. The control may be passed over a secure as 103 well as over an insecure channel. 105 The control allows for an additional authorization identity to be 106 passed. In some deployments, these identities may contain 107 confidential information which require privacy protection. 109 Note that the server is responsible for determining if a proxied 110 authorization request is to be honored. 112 6. Copyright 114 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. 116 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 117 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 118 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 119 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 120 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 121 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 122 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 123 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 124 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 125 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 126 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 127 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 128 English. 130 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 131 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 133 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 134 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 135 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 136 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 137 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 138 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 140 7. Bibliography 142 [LDAPV3] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access 143 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 145 [KEYWORDS] Bradner, Scott, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 146 Requirement Levels", draft-bradner-key-words-03.txt, January, 147 1997. 149 [AUTH] M. Wahl, H. Alvestrand, J. Hodges, R. Morgan, "Authentication 150 Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000 152 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL November 2000 154 8. Author's Address 156 Rob Weltman 157 +1 650 461 1708 158 robw@worldspot.com 160 9. Acknowledgements 162 Mark Smith of Netscape Communications Corp., Mark Wahl of Sun 163 Microsystems, Inc, and Kurt Zeilenga of OpenLDAP Foundation have 164 contributed with reviews of this draft. 166 10. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-05.txt 168 The control also applies to add and extended operations. 170 The control value is an authorization ID, not necessarily a DN. 172 Confidentiality concerns are mentioned. 174 11. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-04.txt 176 The control does not apply to bind, unbind, or abandon operations. 178 The proxy DN is represented as a string in the control, rather than 179 embedded in a sequence. 181 Support for the control is published in the supportedControl 182 attribute of the root DSE, not in supportedExtensions. 184 The security section mentions confidentiality issues with exposing an 185 additional identity. 187 12. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-03.txt 189 None 191 13. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-02.txt 193 13.1 Renamed Control 195 The Control is now called Proxied Authorization Control, rather than 196 Proxied Authentication Control, to reflect that no authentication 197 occurs as a consequence of processing the Control. 199 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL November 2000 201 13.2 Control envelope 203 Rather than containing an LDAPDN as the Control value, the Control 204 contains a Sequence (which contains an LDAPDN). This is to provide 205 for future extensions.