idnits 2.17.1 draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 ([RFC2119], [RFC2251]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 216 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119]. -- 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 (20 November 2001) is 8186 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 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: Experimental OpenLDAP Foundation 4 Expires: 20 May 2002 20 November 2001 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 an Experimental 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 . The list of 31 Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 . 34 Copyright 2001, The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 36 Please see the Copyright section near the end of this document for 37 more information. 39 Abstract 41 LDAP update operations have atomic properties upon individual entries. 42 However, it is often desirable to update two or more entries as one 43 atomic action, a transaction. Transactions are necessary to support a 44 number of applications including resource provisioning and information 45 replication. This document defines an LDAP extension to support 46 transactions. 48 Conventions 50 The key words "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", 51 "SHOULD NOT", "MAY" and "MAY NOT" used in this document are to be 52 interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119]. 54 Protocol elements are described using ASN.1 [X.680]. The term 55 "BER-encoded" means the element is to be encoded using the Basic 56 Encoding Rules [X.690] under the restrictions detailed in Section 5.1 57 of [RFC2251]. 59 1. Overview 61 This document extends LDAP [RFC2251] to allow clients to group a 62 number of related update operations and have them preformed as one 63 atomic action, a transaction. The mechanism uses the grouping 64 mechanism provided by [GROUP] to relate operations of the transaction. 65 The createGrouping operation is used to obtain a group cookie which is 66 used to identify operations which are apart of the transaction. The 67 group cookie can be viewed as a transaction identifier. The 68 endGrouping operation is used to settle (commit or abort) the 69 transaction. 71 This document is a ''work in progress.'' This specification will 72 likely be significantly enhanced before it progressed. In particular, 73 clarification of transaction semantics and better error handling will 74 likely be added. A ''prepare'' capability may also be added. 76 2. Specification of a Transaction 78 Servers implementing this specification SHOULD publish the 79 transactionGroupingType as a value of the supportedGroupingTypes 80 attribute contained within the Root DSE. 82 transactionGroupingType ::= 1.1.1 ;; fictious 84 A client wishing to preform a transaction MUST issue a 85 createGroupingRequest with a createGroupType of 86 transactionGroupingType and no createGroupValue. A server which is 87 willing and able to support transactions SHALL return a 88 createGroupingResponse with a success result code, a 89 createGroupCookie, and no createGroupValue. Otherwise the server 90 SHALL return a non-success result code, no createGroupCookie, and no 91 createGroupValue. 93 The client MAY then attach a GroupingControl to subsequent update 94 operations (modify or moddn) to indicate that they are to be processed 95 as part of the transaction per [GROUP], Section 3.5. If the server is 96 willing and able to attempt to process operation as part of the 97 transaction, the server SHALL return success. If the server is 98 unwilling or unable to attempt to process the operation as part of the 99 transaction, the server SHALL return a non-successful result code. 101 If the server becomes unwilling or unable to continue the 102 specification of a transaction, the server SHOULD issue a 103 endGroupNotice. Any future use of cookie by the client SHALL result 104 in a response containing a non-success result code. 106 Upon receipt of a endGroupingNotice, the client SHOULD discontinue all 107 use of the grouping cookie. The client SHOULD NOT issue an 108 endGroupingRequest for the grouping cookie as the transaction is null 109 and void. 111 A client requests settling of transaction by issuing an 112 endGroupingRequest where the groupingCookie is the group cookie 113 identify the transaction. The absence of any endGroupingValue 114 indicates a commit request. The presence of an empty endGroupValue 115 indicates an abort request. The endGroupValue MUST be empty if 116 provided. 118 The endGroupingResponse of success indicates the settle action was 119 successfully. No endGroupingValue is provided with the 120 endGroupingResponse. 122 3. Transaction Semantics 124 Upon request to commit the transaction, the server perform the 125 operations as one atomic action. Operations belonging to the 126 transaction are applied in the request order. If any operation fails, 127 the contents of target objects is left unchanged and a non-success 128 result code is returned indicating the nature of the failure. 130 There is no requirement that a server serialize transactions. That 131 is, a server MAY process multiple transactions commit requests (from 132 one or more clients) acting upon different sets of entries 133 concurrently. A server MUST ensure concurrent processing of 134 transactions provides the atomic properties described above. A server 135 MUST avoid deadlock. 137 4. Distributed Directory Considerations 139 The LDAP/X.500 models provide for distributed directory operations 140 including server-side chaining and client-side chasing of operations. 142 This document does not disallow servers from chaining operations which 143 are part of a transaction. However, if a server does allow such 144 chaining, it MUST ensure that transaction semantics detailed above are 145 provided. 147 This mechanism defined by this document does not support client-side 148 chasing. Grouping cookies used to identify the transaction are 149 specific to a particular client/server session. 151 The LDAP/X.500 models provide for a single-master/multiple-slave 152 replication architecture. This document states no requirement that 153 changes made to the directory based upon processing a transaction be 154 replicated as one atomic action. That is, the client SHOULD NOT 155 assume tight data consistency nor fast data convergence at slave 156 servers unless they have a priori knowledge that such is provided. 157 Though this mechanism could be used to support replication, such use 158 is not described in this document. 160 The LDAP/X.500 models do not currently support a multi-master 161 replication architecture and, hence, not considered by this 162 specification. 164 5. Security Considerations 166 Transactions mechanisms and related grouping operations may be the 167 target of denial of service attacks. Implementors should provide 168 safeguards to ensure these mechanisms are not abused. 170 6. Acknowledgments 172 The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions made by members 173 of the Internet Engineering Task Force. 175 7. Author's Address 177 The author may be contacted as follows: 178 Kurt D. Zeilenga 179 OpenLDAP Foundation 180 182 8. Normative References 184 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 185 Requirement Levels", BCP 14 (also RFC 2119), March 1997. 187 [RFC2251] M. Wahl, S. Kille, T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access 188 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 190 [GROUP] K. Zeilenga, "LDAPv3: Grouping of Related Operations", 191 draft-zeilenga-ldap-grouping-xx.txt, a work in progress. 193 [X.680] ITU-T, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification 194 of Basic Notation", X.680, 1994. 196 [X.690] ITU-T, "Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic, 197 Canonical, and Distinguished Encoding Rules", X.690, 1994. 199 9. Informative References 201 [X.500] ITU-T, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts, Models, and 202 Services", X.500, 1993. 204 [X.501] ITU-T, "The Directory: Models", X.501, 1993. 206 Copyright 2001, The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 208 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished 209 to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain 210 it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 211 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 212 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 213 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, 214 this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by 215 removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society 216 or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose 217 of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 218 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 219 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 220 English. 222 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not 223 be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 225 This document and the information contained herein is provided on 226 an "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHORS, THE INTERNET SOCIETY, AND THE 227 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 228 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE 229 OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY 230 IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 231 PURPOSE.