idnits 2.17.1 draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-05.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 6 characters in excess of 72. ** 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 258 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 (4 November 2002) is 7843 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3377 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510) -- No information found for draft-zeilenga-ldap-grouping-xx - is the name correct? -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3383 (Obsoleted by RFC 4520) Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 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 in six months 4 November 2002 6 LDAP 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 comments 19 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 2002, 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 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) update operations have 42 atomic properties upon individual entries. However, it is often 43 desirable to update two or more entries as one atomic action, a 44 transaction. Transactions are necessary to support a number of 45 applications including resource provisioning and information 46 replication. This document defines an LDAP extension to support 47 transactions. 49 Conventions 51 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 52 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 53 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119]. 55 Protocol elements are described using ASN.1 [X.680]. The term 56 "BER-encoded" means the element is to be encoded using the Basic 57 Encoding Rules [X.690] under the restrictions detailed in Section 5.1 58 of [RFC2251]. 60 1. Overview 62 This document extends LDAP [RFC3377] to allow clients to group a 63 number of related update operations [RFC2251] and have them preformed 64 as one atomic action, a transaction. This extension uses the 65 grouping mechanism provided by [GROUP] to relate operations of the 66 transaction. The createGrouping operation is used to obtain a group 67 cookie which is used to identify operations which are apart of the 68 transaction. The group cookie can be viewed as a transaction 69 identifier. The endGrouping operation is used to settle (commit or 70 abort) the transaction. 72 This specification will likely be significantly enhanced before it 73 progressed. In particular, clarification of transaction semantics and 74 better error handling will likely be added. A ''prepare'' capability 75 may also be added. 77 2. Specification of a Transaction 79 Servers implementing this specification SHOULD publish the 80 transactionGroupingType as a value of the 'supportedGroupingTypes' 81 attribute contained within the Root DSE. 83 transactionGroupingType ::= IANA-ASSIGNED-OID 85 A client wishing to preform a transaction MUST issue a 86 createGroupingRequest with a createGroupType of 87 transactionGroupingType and no createGroupValue. A server which is 88 willing and able to support transactions SHALL return a 89 createGroupingResponse with a success result code, a 90 createGroupCookie, and no createGroupValue. Otherwise the server 91 SHALL return a non-success result code, no createGroupCookie, and no 92 createGroupValue. 94 The client MAY then attach a GroupingControl to subsequent update 95 operations (modify or moddn) to indicate that they are to be processed 96 as part of the transaction per [GROUP], Section 3.5. If the server is 97 willing and able to attempt to process operation as part of the 98 transaction, the server SHALL return success. If the server is 99 unwilling or unable to attempt to process the operation as part of the 100 transaction, the server SHALL return a non-successful result code. 102 If the server becomes unwilling or unable to continue the 103 specification of a transaction, the server SHOULD issue a 104 endGroupNotice. Any future use of cookie by the client SHALL result 105 in a response containing a non-success result code. 107 Upon receipt of a endGroupingNotice, the client SHOULD discontinue all 108 use of the grouping cookie. The client SHOULD NOT issue an 109 endGroupingRequest for the grouping cookie as the transaction is null 110 and void. 112 A client requests settling of transaction by issuing an 113 endGroupingRequest where the groupingCookie is the group cookie 114 identify the transaction. The absence of any endGroupingValue 115 indicates a commit request. The presence of an empty endGroupValue 116 indicates an abort request. The endGroupValue MUST be empty if 117 provided. 119 The endGroupingResponse of success indicates the settle action was 120 successfully. No endGroupingValue is provided with the 121 endGroupingResponse. 123 3. Transaction Semantics 125 Upon request to commit the transaction, the server perform the 126 operations as one atomic action. Operations belonging to the 127 transaction are applied in the request order. If any operation fails, 128 the contents of target objects is left unchanged and a non-success 129 result code is returned indicating the nature of the failure. 131 There is no requirement that a server serialize transactions. That 132 is, a server MAY process multiple transactions commit requests (from 133 one or more clients) acting upon different sets of entries 134 concurrently. A server MUST ensure concurrent processing of 135 transactions provides the atomic properties described above. A server 136 MUST avoid deadlock. 138 4. Distributed Directory Considerations 140 The LDAP/X.500 models provide for distributed directory operations 141 including server-side chaining and client-side chasing of operations. 143 This document does not disallow servers from chaining operations which 144 are part of a transaction. However, if a server does allow such 145 chaining, it MUST ensure that transaction semantics detailed above are 146 provided. 148 This mechanism defined by this document does not support client-side 149 chasing. Grouping cookies used to identify the transaction are 150 specific to a particular client/server session. 152 The LDAP/X.500 models provide for a single-master/multiple-slave 153 replication architecture. This document states no requirement that 154 changes made to the directory based upon processing a transaction be 155 replicated as one atomic action. That is, the client SHOULD NOT 156 assume tight data consistency nor fast data convergence at slave 157 servers unless they have prior knowledge that such is provided. 158 Though this mechanism could be used to support replication, such use 159 is not described in this document. 161 The LDAP/X.500 models do not currently support a multi-master 162 replication architecture and, hence, not considered by this 163 specification. 165 5. Security Considerations 167 Transactions mechanisms and related grouping operations may be the 168 target of denial of service attacks. Implementors should provide 169 safeguards to ensure these mechanisms are not abused. 171 6. IANA Considerations 173 In accordance with [RFC3383], it is requested that Internet Assigned 174 Numbers Authority (IANA) make the following assignments. 176 6.1. Object Identifier 178 An LDAP Object Identifier to identify the grouping type defined in 179 this document is requested. 181 The following registration template is suggested: 183 Subject: Request for LDAP Object Identifier Registration 184 Person & email address to contact for further information: 185 Kurt Zeilenga 186 Specification: RFCXXXX 187 Author/Change Controller: IESG 188 Comments: 189 Identifies the LDAP Transactions Grouping Type 191 6.2. LDAP Protocol Mechanism 193 Registration of the protocol mechanisms defined in this document is 194 requested. 196 Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechansism Registration 198 Object Identifier: IANA-ASSIGNED-OID 199 Description: LDAP Transaction Grouping Type 200 Person & email address to contact for further information: 201 Kurt Zeilenga 202 Usage: Grouping 203 Specification: RFCxxxx 204 Author/Change Controller: IESG 205 Comments: none 207 7. Acknowledgments 209 The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions made by members 210 of the Internet Engineering Task Force. 212 8. Author's Address 214 Kurt D. Zeilenga 215 OpenLDAP Foundation 216 218 9. Normative References 220 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 221 Requirement Levels", BCP 14 (also RFC 2119), March 1997. 223 [RFC2251] M. Wahl, S. Kille, T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access 224 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 226 [RFC3377] J. Hodges, R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access 227 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002. 229 [GROUP] K. Zeilenga, "LDAP: Grouping of Related Operations", 230 draft-zeilenga-ldap-grouping-xx.txt, a work in progress. 232 [X.680] ITU-T, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification 233 of Basic Notation", X.680, 1994. 235 [X.690] ITU-T, "Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic, 236 Canonical, and Distinguished Encoding Rules", X.690, 1994. 238 10. Informative References 240 [RFC3383] K. Zeilenga, "IANA Considerations for LDAP", BCP 64 (also 241 RFC 3383), September 2002. 243 [X.500] ITU-T, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts, Models, and 244 Services", X.500, 1993. 246 [X.501] ITU-T, "The Directory: Models", X.501, 1993. 248 Copyright 2002, The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 250 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished 251 to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain 252 it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 253 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 254 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 255 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, 256 this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by 257 removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society 258 or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose 259 of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 260 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, 261 or as required to translate it into languages other than English. 263 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not 264 be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 266 This document and the information contained herein is provided on 267 an "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHORS, THE INTERNET SOCIETY, AND THE 268 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 269 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE 270 OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 271 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.