idnits 2.17.1 draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered 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? 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 document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC2251]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 203 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. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using 'MUST NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: The key words "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY" and "MAY NOT" used in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'SHOULD not' in this paragraph: The LDAP/X.500 model provides for a single-master/multiple-slave replication architecture. This document states no requirement that changes made to the directory based upon processing a transaction be replicated as one atomic action. That is, the client SHOULD not assume tight data consistency nor fast data convergence at slave servers unless they have a priori knowledge that such is provided. Though this mechanism could be used to support replication, such use is not described in this document. -- 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 (9 August 2000) is 8660 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2251 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4511, RFC 4512, RFC 4513) -- No information found for draft-zeilenga-ldap-grouping-xx - is the name correct? Summary: 8 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: Informational OpenLDAP Foundation 4 Expires: 9 February 2001 9 August 2000 6 LDAPv3 Transactions 7 9 Status of 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 RFC Editor as a Standard Track document. 16 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical discussion of this 17 document will take place on the IETF LDAP Extension Working Group 18 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 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft 31 Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 Copyright 2000, The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 35 Please see the Copyright section near the end of this document for 36 more information. 38 1. Abstract 40 LDAP [RFC2251] update operations have atomic properties upon 41 individual entries. However, it is often desirable to update two or 42 more entries as one atomic action, a transaction. Transactions are 43 necessary to support a number of applications including resource 44 provisioning and information replication. This document defines an 45 LDAP extension to support transactions. 47 2. Overview 49 This document provides a mechanism to allow clients to group a number 50 of related update operations and have them preformed as as one atomic 51 action, a transaction. The mechanism uses the grouping mechanism 52 provided by [GROUP] to relate operations of the transaction. The 53 createGrouping operation is used to obtain a group cookie which is 54 used to identify operations which are apart of the transaction. The 55 group cookie can be viewed as a transaction identifier. The 56 endGrouping operation is used to settle (commit or abort) the 57 transaction. 59 This document is a ''work in progress.'' This specification will 60 likely be significantly enhanced before it progressed. In particular, 61 clarification of transaction semantics and better error handling will 62 likely be added. The current intent is to eventually publish this 63 work as an Informational RFC. 65 The key words "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", 66 "SHOULD NOT", "MAY" and "MAY NOT" used in this document are to be 67 interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 69 3. Specification of a Transaction 71 Servers implementing this specification SHOULD publishing 72 transactionGroupingType as a value of the supportedGroupingTypes 73 attribute contained within the Root DSE. 75 transactionGroupingType ::= 1.2.3 ;; fictious 77 A client wishing to preform a transaction MUST issue a 78 createGroupingRequest with a createGroupType of 79 transactionGroupingType and no createGroupValue. A server which is 80 willing and able to support transactions SHALL return a 81 createGroupingResponse with a success result code, createGroupCookie, 82 and no createGroupValue. Otherwise the server SHALL return a 83 non-success result code, no createGroupCookie, and no 84 createGroupValue. 86 The client MAY then attach a GroupingControl to subsequent update 87 operations (modify or moddn) to indicate that they are to be processed 88 as part of the transaction per [GROUP], Section 3.5. If the server is 89 willing and able to attempt to process operation as part of the 90 transaction, the server SHALL return success. If the server is 91 unwilling or unable to attempt to process the operation as part of the 92 transaction, the server SHALL return a non-successful result code. 94 If the server becomes unwilling or unable to continue the 95 specification of a transaction, the server SHOULD issue a 96 endGroupNotice. Any future use of cookie by the client SHALL result 97 in a response containing a non-success result code. 99 Upon receipt of a endGroupingNotice, the client SHOULD discontinue are 100 use of the grouping cookie. The client SHOULD NOT issue an 101 endGroupingRequest for the grouping cookie as the transaction is null 102 and void. 104 A client requests settling of transaction by issuing an 105 endGroupingRequest where the groupingCookie is the group cookie 106 identify the transaction. The absence of any endGroupingValue 107 indicates a commit request. The presence of an empty endGroupValue 108 indicates an abort request. The endGroupValue MUST be empty if 109 provided. 111 The endGroupingResponse of success indicates the settle action was 112 successfully. No endGroupingValue is provided with the 113 endGroupingResponse. 115 4. Transaction Semantics 117 Upon request to commit the transaction, the server perform the 118 operations as one atomic action. Operations belonging to the 119 transaction are processed in the request order. If any operation 120 fails, the contents of target objects is left unchanged and a 121 non-success result code is returned indicating the nature of the 122 failure. 124 There is no requirement that a server serialize transactions. That 125 is, a server MAY process multiple transactions commit requests (from 126 one or more clients) acting upon different sets of entries 127 concurrently. A server MUST ensure concurrent processing of 128 transactions provides the atomic properties described above. A server 129 MUST avoid deadlock. 131 5. Distributed Directory Considerations 133 The LDAP/X.500 model provides for distributed directory operations 134 including support for server-side chaining and client-side chasing of 135 operations. 137 Though this document does not disallow servers from chaining 138 operations which are part of a transaction. However, if a server does 139 allow such chaining, it MUST ensure that transaction semantics 140 detailed above are provided. 142 This mechanism defined by this document does not support client-side 143 chasing. Grouping cookies used to identify the transaction are 144 specific to a particular client/server session. 146 The LDAP/X.500 model provides for a single-master/multiple-slave 147 replication architecture. This document states no requirement that 148 changes made to the directory based upon processing a transaction be 149 replicated as one atomic action. That is, the client SHOULD not 150 assume tight data consistency nor fast data convergence at slave 151 servers unless they have a priori knowledge that such is provided. 152 Though this mechanism could be used to support replication, such use 153 is not described in this document. 155 LDAP/X.500 model do not currently support multi-master replication 156 architectures and, hence, is not supported by this mechanism. 158 6. Security Considerations 160 Transactions mechanisms and related grouping operations may be the 161 target of denial of service attacks. Implementors should provide 162 safeguards to ensure these mechanisms are not abused. 164 7. References 166 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 167 Requirement Levels", Harvard University, RFC 2119, March 168 1997. 170 [RFC2251] M. Wahl, S. Kille, T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access 171 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 173 [GROUP] K. Zeilenga, "LDAPv3: Grouping of Related Operations", 174 draft-zeilenga-ldap-grouping-xx.txt, a work in progress. 176 8. Acknowledgments 178 The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions made by members 179 of the Internet Engineering Task Force. 181 9. Additional Information 183 Discussions regarding these suggestions may directed to the author: 185 Kurt D. Zeilenga 186 OpenLDAP Foundation 187 189 or the LDAPext Working Group mailing list: 191 193 Copyright 2000, The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 195 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished 196 to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain 197 it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 198 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 199 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 200 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, 201 this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by 202 removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society 203 or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose 204 of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 205 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 206 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 207 English. 209 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not 210 be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 212 This document and the information contained herein is provided on 213 an "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHORS, THE INTERNET SOCIETY, AND THE 214 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 215 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE 216 OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY 217 IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 218 PURPOSE.