idnits 2.17.1 draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-12.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 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: '... The criticality MUST be present and M...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 79: '...The controlValue SHALL be present and ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 121: '... honored. "Anonymous" users SHOULD NOT...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 54 has weird spacing: '...ocument are ...' == Line 146 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 7681 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) -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-bradner-key-words is -02, but you're referring to -03. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3377 (ref. 'LDAPV3') (Obsoleted by RFC 4510) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2222 (ref. 'SASL') (Obsoleted by RFC 4422, RFC 4752) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2829 (ref. 'AUTH') (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4513) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2830 (ref. 'LDAPTLS') (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4511, RFC 4513) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2251 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4511, RFC 4512, RFC 4513) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2252 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4512, RFC 4517, RFC 4523) -- Duplicate reference: RFC2829, mentioned in 'RFC 2829', was also mentioned in 'AUTH'. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2829 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4513) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3383 (Obsoleted by RFC 4520) Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 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: Standards Track Netscape Communications Corp. 4 April 2003 6 LDAP Proxied Authorization Control 7 draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-12.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 the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 32 (LDAP) Proxy Authorization Control. The Proxy Authorization Control 33 allows a client to request that an operation be processed under a 34 provided authorization identity instead of as the current 35 authorization identity associated with the connection. 37 1. Introduction 39 Proxy authorization allows a client to request that an operation be 40 processed under a provided authorization identity instead of as the 41 current authorization identity associated with the connection. This 42 document defines support for proxy authorization using the Control 43 mechanism [RFC 2251]. The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 44 [LDAPV3] supports the use of the Simple Authentication and Security 45 Layer [SASL] for authentication and for supplying an authorization 46 identity distinct from the authentication identity, where the 47 authorization identity applies to the whole LDAP session. The Proxy 48 Authorization Control provides a mechanism for specifying an 49 authorization identity on a per operation basis, benefiting clients 50 that need to efficiently perform operations on behalf of multiple 51 users. 53 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" 54 used in this document are to be interpreted as described in 55 [KEYWORDS]. 57 2. Publishing support for the Proxy Authorization Control 59 Support for the Proxy Authorization Control is indicated by the 60 presence of the Object Identifier (OID) "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18" in 61 the supportedControl attribute [RFC 2252] of a server's root DSE. 63 3. Proxy Authorization Control 65 A single Proxy Authorization Control may be included in any search, 66 compare, modify, add, delete, modify DN or extended operation request 67 message with the exception of any extension that causes a change in 68 authentication, authorization, or data confidentiality [RFC 2829], 69 such as Start TLS [LDAPTLS] as part of the controls field of the 70 LDAPMessage, as defined in [RFC 2251]. 72 The controlType of the proxy authorization control is 73 "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18". 75 The criticality MUST be present and MUST be TRUE. This requirement 76 protects clients from submitting a request that is executed with an 77 unintended authorization identity. 79 The controlValue SHALL be present and contain either an authzId 80 [AUTH] representing the authorization identity for the request or 81 empty if an anonymous association is to be used. 83 The mechanism for determining proxy access rights is specific to the 84 server's proxy authorization policy. 86 If the requested authorization identity is recognized by the server, 87 and the client is authorized to adopt the requested authorization 88 identity, the request will be executed as if submitted by the proxy 89 authorization identity, otherwise the result code TBD is returned. 90 [Note to the IESG/IANA/RFC Editor: the value TBD is to be replaced 91 with an IANA assigned LDAP Result Code (see RFC 3383 section 3.6] 93 4. Implementation Considerations 95 One possible interaction of proxy authorization and normal access 96 control is illustrated here for the case of search requests. During 97 evaluation of a search request, an entry which would have been 98 returned for the search if submitted by the proxy authorization 99 identity directly may not be returned if the server finds that the 100 requester does not have the right to assume the requested identity 101 for searching the entry, even if the entry is within the scope of a 102 search request under a base DN which does imply such rights. This 103 means that fewer results, or no results, may be returned compared to 104 the case where the proxy authorization identity issued the request 105 directly. An example of such a case may be a system with fine-grained 106 access control, where the proxy right requester has proxy rights at 107 the top of a search tree, but not at or below a point or points 108 within the tree. 110 5. Security Considerations 112 The Proxy Authorization Control method is subject to general LDAP 113 security considerations [RFC 2251] [AUTH] [LDAPTLS]. The control may 114 be passed over a secure as well as over an insecure channel. 116 The control allows for an additional authorization identity to be 117 passed. In some deployments, these identities may contain 118 confidential information which require privacy protection. 120 Note that the server is responsible for determining if a proxy 121 authorization request is to be honored. "Anonymous" users SHOULD NOT 122 be allowed to assume the identity of others. 124 6. IANA Considerations 126 The OID "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18" is reserved for the Proxy 127 Authorization Control. It is to be registered as an LDAP Protocol 128 Mechanism [RFC 3383]. 130 A result code for the case where the server does not execute a 131 request using the proxy authorization identity is to be assigned by 132 the IANA. 134 7. Copyright 136 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. 138 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 139 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 140 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 141 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 142 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 143 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 144 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 145 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 146 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 147 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 148 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 149 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 150 English. 152 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 153 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 155 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 156 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 157 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 158 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 159 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 160 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 162 8. Normative References 164 [KEYWORDS] Bradner, Scott, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 165 Requirement Levels", draft-bradner-key-words-03.txt, January, 166 1997. 168 [LDAPV3] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access 169 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September 170 2002. 172 [SASL] J. Myers, "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", 173 RFC 2222, October 1997 175 [AUTH] M. Wahl, H. Alvestrand, J. Hodges, R. Morgan, "Authentication 176 Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000 178 [LDAPTLS] J. Hodges, R. Morgan, M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory 179 Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security", 180 RFC 2830, May 2000 182 [RFC 2251] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access 183 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 185 [RFC 2252] M. Wahl, A. Coulbeck, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight 186 Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", 187 RFC 2252, December 1997 189 [RFC 2829] M. Wahl, H. Alvestrand, J. Hodges, R. Morgan, 190 "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000 192 [RFC 3383] K. Zeilenga, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 193 Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 194 (LDAP)", RFC 3383, September 2002 196 9. Author's Address 198 Rob Weltman 199 Netscape Communications Corp. 200 360 W. Caribbean Drive 201 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 202 USA 203 +1 650 937-3194 204 rweltman@netscape.com 206 10. Acknowledgements 208 Mark Smith of Netscape Communications Corp., Mark Wahl of Sun 209 Microsystems, Inc, Kurt Zeilenga of OpenLDAP Foundation, Jim 210 Sermersheim of Novell, and Steven Legg of Adacel have contributed 211 with reviews of this document.