idnits 2.17.1 draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-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 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 70: '... The criticality MUST be included and ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 80: '...uest is denied, the server MUST return...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 90: '...ooting, a server MAY include informati...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 124: '... honored. "Anonymous" users SHOULD NOT...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 49 has weird spacing: '...ocument are...' == Line 139 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 (December 2001) is 8167 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 section? 'AUTH' on line 165 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'LDAPV3' on line 158 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'KEYWORDS' on line 161 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'LDAPv3' on line 72 looks like a reference Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Rob Weltman 3 Intended Category: Standards Track Netscape Communications Corp. 4 December 2001 6 LDAP Proxied Authorization Control 7 draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-09.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Task Force 15 (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups 16 may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 18 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 19 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 20 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference 21 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 23 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 24 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 26 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 29 Abstract 31 This document defines support for the Proxied Authorization Control. 32 Controls are an LDAP protocol version 3 extension, to allow passing 33 arbitrary control information along with a standard request to a 34 server, and to receive arbitrary information back with a standard 35 result. The Proxied Authorization Control allows a client to request 36 that an operation be processed under a provided authorization 37 identity [AUTH] instead of as the current authorization identity 38 associated with the connection. 40 1. Introduction 42 Version 3 of the LDAP protocol provides a means of supplying 43 arbitrary additional information along with a request to an LDAP 44 server, and receiving arbitrary additional response information. The 45 Control protocol extension is described in [LDAPV3], section 4.1.12. 46 This document defines support for proxied authorization using the 47 Control mechanism. 49 The key words "MUST", "SHOULD", and "MAY" used in this document are 50 to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. 52 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL December 2001 54 2. Publishing support for the Proxied Authorization Control 56 Support for the Proxied Authorization Control is indicated by the 57 presence of the OID "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18" in the 58 supportedControl attribute of a server's root DSE. 60 3. Proxied Authorization Control 62 A single Proxied Authorization Control may be included in any search, 63 compare, modify, add, delete, modDN or extended operation (except for 64 startTLS) request message as part of the controls field of the 65 LDAPMessage, as defined in [LDAPV3]. 67 The controlType of the proxied authorization control is 68 "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18". 70 The criticality MUST be included and MUST be TRUE. 72 The control value is an LDAPString [LDAPv3] containing an authzId as 73 defined in section 9 of [AUTH]. This is the authorization identity to 74 use for the request. An empty authzId implies the anonymous identity. 76 4. Permission to execute as proxy 78 An LDAP server supporting the Proxied Authorization Control may 79 choose to honor or not honor a particular request. If the control is 80 supported but a particular request is denied, the server MUST return 81 the error code insufficientAccessRights. 83 A typical implementation will evaluate if the requester has proxy 84 access rights at the base DN of the request. If the requester has 85 proxy access rights, and if the authorization identity is recognized 86 by the server, the request will be honored. If the request is 87 honored, it will be executed as if submitted by the proxied 88 authorization identity. 90 To aid in troubleshooting, a server MAY include information in the 91 errorMessage field of the LDAPResult to help a human distinguish 92 between the case where insufficientAccessRights is returned because 93 the client is not authorized to adopt the requested authorization 94 identity and the case where the requested authorization identity was 95 adopted but the authorization identity did not permit execution of 96 the operation. 98 During evaluation of a search request, an entry which would have been 99 returned for the search if submitted by the proxied authorization 100 identity directly may not be returned if the server finds that the 101 requester does not have proxy rights to the entry, even if the entry 102 is within the scope of a search request under a base DN which does 103 imply such rights. This means that fewer results, or no results, may 105 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL December 2001 107 be returned compared to the case where the proxied authorization 108 identity issued the request directly. An example of such a case may 109 be a system with fine-grained access control, where the proxy right 110 requester has proxy rights at the top of a search tree, but not at or 111 below a point or points within the tree. 113 5. Security Considerations 115 The Proxied Authorization Control method is subject to standard LDAP 116 security considerations. The control may be passed over a secure as 117 well as over an insecure channel. 119 The control allows for an additional authorization identity to be 120 passed. In some deployments, these identities may contain 121 confidential information which require privacy protection. 123 Note that the server is responsible for determining if a proxied 124 authorization request is to be honored. "Anonymous" users SHOULD NOT 125 be allowed to assume the identity of others. 127 6. Copyright 129 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. 131 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 132 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 133 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 134 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 135 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 136 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 137 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 138 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 139 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 140 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 141 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 142 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 143 English. 145 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 146 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 148 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 149 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 150 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 151 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 152 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 153 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 155 7. Bibliography 156 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL December 2001 158 [LDAPV3] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access 159 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 161 [KEYWORDS] Bradner, Scott, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 162 Requirement Levels", draft-bradner-key-words-03.txt, January, 163 1997. 165 [AUTH] M. Wahl, H. Alvestrand, J. Hodges, R. Morgan, "Authentication 166 Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000 168 8. Author's Address 170 Rob Weltman 171 Netscape Communications Corp. 172 466 Ellis Street 173 Mountain View, CA 94043 174 USA 175 +1 650 937-3194 176 rweltman@netscape.com 178 9. Acknowledgements 180 Mark Smith of Netscape Communications Corp., Mark Wahl of Sun 181 Microsystems, Inc, and Kurt Zeilenga of OpenLDAP Foundation have 182 contributed with reviews of this draft. 184 10. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-08.txt 186 Proxied Authorization Control 188 Clarifications: the control may not be submitted with a startTLS 189 request; an empty controlValue implies the anonymous identity; only 190 one control may be included with a request. 192 Permission to execute as proxy 194 Replaced "proxy identity" with "proxied authorization identity". 196 Security Considerations 198 Added statement that anonymous users should not be allowed to assume 199 the identity of others. 201 11. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-07.txt 203 Proxied Authorization Control 205 Clarification: the content of the control is an LDAPString. 207 PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL December 2001 209 12. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-06.txt 211 None 213 13. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-05.txt 215 The control also applies to add and extended operations. 217 The control value is an authorization ID, not necessarily a DN. 219 Confidentiality concerns are mentioned. 221 14. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-04.txt 223 The control does not apply to bind, unbind, or abandon operations. 225 The proxy DN is represented as a string in the control, rather than 226 embedded in a sequence. 228 Support for the control is published in the supportedControl 229 attribute of the root DSE, not in supportedExtensions. 231 The security section mentions confidentiality issues with exposing an 232 additional identity. 234 15. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-03.txt 236 None 238 16. Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-02.txt 240 16.1 Renamed Control 242 The Control is now called Proxied Authorization Control, rather than 243 Proxied Authentication Control, to reflect that no authentication 244 occurs as a consequence of processing the Control. 246 16.2 Control envelope 248 Rather than containing an LDAPDN as the Control value, the Control 249 contains a Sequence (which contains an LDAPDN). This is to provide 250 for future extensions.