idnits 2.17.1 draft-zeilenga-ldap-noop-04.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 233 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 (3 February 2004) is 7388 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 3 February 2004 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 (2004). 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 operation 49 [RFC2251] 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 an "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 and controlValue is absent. Clients MUST provide a 89 criticality value of TRUE to prevent unintended modification of the 90 directory. 92 The control is appropriate for request messages of LDAP Add, Delete, 93 Modify and ModifyDN operations [RFC2251]. There is no corresponding 94 response control. 96 When the control is attached to an LDAP request, the server does all 97 normal processing possible for the operation without modification of 98 the directory. That is, when the control is attached to an LDAP 99 request, the directory SHALL NOT be updated and the response SHALL NOT 100 have a resultCode of success (0). 102 A result code other than noOperation (IANA-ASSIGNED-CODE) means that 103 the server is not able or willing to complete the processing for the 104 reason indicated by the result code. A result code of noOperation 105 (IANA-ASSIGNED-CODE) indicates that the server discovered no reason 106 why the operation would fail if submitted without the No-Op control. 108 Servers SHOULD indicate their support for this control by providing 109 IANA-ASSIGNED-OID as a value of the 'supportedControl' attribute type 110 in their root DSE entry. A server MAY choose to advertise this 111 extension only when the client is authorized to use this operation. 113 3. Security Considerations 115 The No-Op control mechanism allows directory administrators and users 116 to verify that access control and other administrative policy controls 117 are properly configured. The mechanism may also lead to the 118 development (and deployment) of more effective security auditing 119 tools. 121 The No-Op control mechanism is believed not to introduce any security 122 risks beyond those of the base operation it is attached to. Security 123 considerations for the base operations, as well as general LDAP 124 security considerations, are discussed in RFCs comprising the LDAP 125 Technical Specification [RFC3377]. 127 4. IANA Considerations 129 4.1. Object Identifier 131 It is requested that IANA assign an LDAP Object Identifier [RFC3383] 132 to identify the LDAP No-Op Control defined in this document. 134 Subject: Request for LDAP Object Identifier Registration 135 Person & email address to contact for further information: 136 Kurt Zeilenga 137 Specification: RFC XXXX 138 Author/Change Controller: IESG 139 Comments: 140 Identifies the LDAP No-Op Control 142 4.2 LDAP Protocol Mechanism 144 Registration of this protocol mechanism is requested [RFC3383]. 146 Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration 147 Object Identifier: IANA-ASSIGNED-OID 148 Description: No-Op Control 149 Person & email address to contact for further information: 150 Kurt Zeilenga 151 Usage: Control 152 Specification: RFC XXXX 153 Author/Change Controller: IESG 154 Comments: none 156 4.3 LDAP Result Code 158 Assignment of an LDAP Result Code called 'noOperation' is requested. 160 Subject: LDAP Result Code Registration 161 Person & email address to contact for further information: 162 Kurt Zeilenga 163 Result Code Name: noOperation 164 Specification: RFC XXXX 165 Author/Change Controller: IESG 166 Comments: none 168 5. Author's Address 170 Kurt D. Zeilenga 171 OpenLDAP Foundation 172 174 6. Normative References 176 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 177 Requirement Levels", BCP 14 (also RFC 2119), March 1997. 179 [RFC2251] Wahl, M., T. Howes and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory 180 Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 182 [RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access 183 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, 184 September 2002. 186 7. Informative References 188 [X.500] International Telecommunication Union - 189 Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The Directory 190 -- Overview of concepts, models and services," 191 X.500(1993) (also ISO/IEC 9594-1:1994). 193 [RFC2820] Stokes, E., et. al., "Access Control Requirements for 194 LDAP", RFC 2820, May 2000. 196 [RFC3383] Zeilenga, K., "IANA Considerations for LDAP", BCP 64 197 (also RFC 3383), September 2002. 199 Intellectual Property Rights 201 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 202 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain 203 to the implementation or use of the technology described in this 204 document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or 205 might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any 206 effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's 207 procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 208 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 209 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 210 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 211 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary 212 rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained 213 from the IETF Secretariat. 215 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 216 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 217 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 218 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 219 Director. 221 Full Copyright 223 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 225 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 226 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 227 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and 228 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 229 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 230 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 231 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 232 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 233 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 234 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 235 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, 236 or as required to translate it into languages other than English.