idnits 2.17.1 draft-zeilenga-ldap-noop-03.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 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 232 has weird spacing: '...for the purpo...' == The document seems to lack 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? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- 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 (25 October 2003) is 7488 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: 'U12' is mentioned on line 73, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2251 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4511, RFC 4512, RFC 4513) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3377 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3383 (Obsoleted by RFC 4520) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Kurt D. Zeilenga 3 Intended Category: Standard Track OpenLDAP Foundation 4 Expires in six months 25 October 2003 6 The LDAP No-Op Control 7 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all 12 provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and 15 revision, submitted to the IESG for consideration as a Standard Track 16 document. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical 17 discussion of this document will take place on the IETF LDAP 18 Extensions mailing list . Please send editorial 19 comments directly to the author . 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task 22 Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 23 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 . The list of 31 Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 . 34 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 36 Please see the Full Copyright section near the end of this document 37 for more information. 39 Abstract 41 This document defines the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) 42 No-Op control which can be used to disable the normal effect of an 43 operation. The control can be used to discover how a server might 44 react to a particular update request without updating the directory. 46 1. Overview 48 It is often desirable to be able to determine if a directory [X.500] 49 operation would successful complete or not without having the normal 50 effect of the operation take place. For example, an administrative 51 client might want to verify that new user could update their entry 52 (and not other entries) without the directory actually being updated. 53 The mechanism could be used to build more sophisticated security 54 auditing tools. 56 This document defines the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) 57 [RFC3377] No-Op control. The presence of the No-Op control in an 58 operation request message disables the normal effect upon the 59 directory which operation would otherwise have. Instead of updating 60 the directory and return the normal indication of success, the server 61 does not update the directory and indicates so by returning the 62 noOperation resultCode (introduced below). 64 For example, when the No-Op control is present in a LDAP modify 65 operation [RFC2251], the server is do all processing necessary to 66 perform the operation without actually updating the directory. If it 67 detects an error during this processing, it returns a non-success 68 (other than noOperation) resultCode as it normally would. Otherwise, 69 it returns the noOperation. In either case, the directory is left 70 unchanged. 72 This No-Op control is not intended to be to a "effective access" 73 mechanism [RFC2820, U12]. 75 1.1. Terminology 77 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 78 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 79 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119]. 81 DN stands for Distinguished Name. 82 DSA stands for Directory System Agent. 83 DSE stands for DSA-specific entry. 85 2. No-Op Control 87 The No-Op control is an LDAP Control [RFC2251] whose controlType is 88 IANA-ASSIGNED-OID, criticality is TRUE, and controlValue is absent. 89 Criticality of TRUE is REQUIRED to prevent unintended modification of 90 the directory. There is no corresponding response control. 92 The control is appropriate for LDAP Add, Delete, Modify and ModifyDN 93 operations [RFC2251]. 95 When the control is attached to an LDAP request, the server does all 96 normal processing possible for the operation without modification of 97 the directory. That is, when the control is attached to an LDAP 98 request, the directory SHALL NOT be updated and the response SHALL NOT 99 have a resultCode of success (0). 101 A result code other than noOperation (IANA-ASSIGNED-CODE) means that 102 the server is not able or willing to complete the processing for the 103 reason indicated by the result code. A result code of noOperation 104 (TBD) indicates that the server discovered no reason why the operation 105 would fail if submitted without the No-Op control. 107 Servers SHOULD indicate their support for this control by providing 108 IANA-ASSIGNED-OID as a value of the 'supportedControl' attribute type 109 in their root DSE entry. A server MAY choose to advertise this 110 extension only when the client is authorized to use this operation. 112 3. Security Considerations 114 The No-Op control mechanism allows directory administrators and users 115 to verify that access control and other administrative policy controls 116 are properly configured. The mechanism may also lead to the 117 development (and deployment) of more effective security auditing 118 tools. 120 The No-Op control mechanism is believed not to introduce any security 121 risks beyond those of the base operation it is attached to. Security 122 considerations for the base operations, as well as general LDAP 123 security considerations, are discussed in RFCs comprising the LDAP 124 Technical Specification [RFC3377]. 126 4. IANA Considerations 128 4.1. Object Identifier 130 It is requested that IANA assign an LDAP Object Identifier [RFC3383] 131 to identify the LDAP No-Op Control defined in this document. 133 Subject: Request for LDAP Object Identifier Registration 134 Person & email address to contact for further information: 135 Kurt Zeilenga 136 Specification: RFC XXXX 137 Author/Change Controller: IESG 138 Comments: 139 Identifies the LDAP No-Op Control 141 4.2 LDAP Protocol Mechanism 143 Registration of this protocol mechanism is requested [RFC3383]. 145 Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration 146 Object Identifier: IANA-ASSIGNED-OID 147 Description: No-Op Control 148 Person & email address to contact for further information: 149 Kurt Zeilenga 150 Usage: Control 151 Specification: RFC XXXX 152 Author/Change Controller: IESG 153 Comments: none 155 4.3 LDAP Result Code 157 Assignment of an LDAP Result Code called 'noOperation' is requested. 159 Subject: LDAP Result Code Registration 160 Person & email address to contact for further information: 161 Kurt Zeilenga 162 Result Code Name: noOperation 163 Specification: RFC XXXX 164 Author/Change Controller: IESG 165 Comments: none 167 5. Author's Address 169 Kurt D. Zeilenga 170 OpenLDAP Foundation 171 173 6. Normative References 175 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 176 Requirement Levels", BCP 14 (also RFC 2119), March 1997. 178 [RFC2251] Wahl, M., T. Howes and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory 179 Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 181 [RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access 182 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, 183 September 2002. 185 7. Informative References 187 [X.500] International Telecommunication Union - 188 Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The Directory 189 -- Overview of concepts, models and services," 190 X.500(1993) (also ISO/IEC 9594-1:1994). 192 [RFC2820] Stokes, E., et. al., "Access Control Requirements for 193 LDAP", RFC 2820, May 2000. 195 [RFC3383] Zeilenga, K., "IANA Considerations for LDAP", BCP 64 196 (also RFC 3383), September 2002. 198 Intellectual Property Rights 200 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 201 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain 202 to the implementation or use of the technology described in this 203 document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or 204 might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any 205 effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's 206 procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 207 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 208 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 209 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 210 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary 211 rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained 212 from the IETF Secretariat. 214 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 215 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 216 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 217 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 218 Director. 220 Full Copyright 222 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 224 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 225 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 226 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and 227 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 228 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 229 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 230 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 231 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 232 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 233 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 234 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, 235 or as required to translate it into languages other than English.