idnits 2.17.1 draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-06.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 269 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 May 2003) is 7661 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 3 May 2003 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 2003, 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 acting 42 upon entries have atomic, consistency, isolation, durability (ACID) 43 properties. However, it is often desirable to update two or more 44 entries as one unit of interaction, a transaction. Transactions are 45 necessary to support a number of applications including resource 46 provisioning and information replication. This document defines an 47 LDAP extension to support 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 the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) 63 [RFC3377] to allow clients to group a number of related update 64 operations [RFC2251] and have them preformed as one unit of 65 interaction, a transaction. As with distinct update operations, each 66 transaction has atomic, consistency, isolation, and durability 67 ([ACID]) properties. 69 This extension uses the grouping mechanism provided by [GROUP] to 70 relate operations of the transaction. The createGrouping operation is 71 used to obtain a group cookie which is used to identify operations 72 which are apart of the transaction. The group cookie can be viewed as 73 a transaction identifier. The endGrouping operation is used to settle 74 (commit or abort) the transaction. 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 ::= IANA-ASSIGNED-OID 84 A client wishing to preform a transaction issues a 85 createGroupingRequest with a createGroupType of 86 transactionGroupingType and no createGroupValue. A server which is 87 willing and able to support transactions returns a 88 createGroupingResponse with a success result code, a 89 createGroupCookie, and no createGroupValue. Otherwise the server 90 returns a non-success result code, no createGroupCookie, and no 91 createGroupValue. 93 The client then issues may issue one or more update (add, delete, 94 modify, rename) requests, each with a GroupingControl indicating they 95 are to processed as part of the transaction grouping. If the server 96 is willing and able to attempt to process operation as part of the 97 transaction, the server returns success. As further processing of the 98 operation is be deferred until settlement, the operation is considered 99 still outstanding and its messageID cannot to be reused until after 100 settlement. If the server is unwilling or unable to attempt to 101 process the operation as part of the transaction, the server returns a 102 non-successful result code. 104 If the server becomes unwilling or unable to continue the 105 specification of a transaction, the server return the canceled 106 resultCode for each deferred operation and then issue a endGroupNotice 107 with a non-success resultCode. Any future use of cookie by the client 108 will result in a response containing a non-success result code. Upon 109 receipt of a endGroupingNotice, the client is to discontinue all use 110 of the grouping cookie as the transaction is null 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 If the commit response indicates failure, the server may return an 120 endGroupingValue with the endGroupingResponse. If so, it contains the 121 BER-encoding of a MessageID [RFC2251] of the update operation 122 associated with the failure. 124 3. Settling of the Transaction 126 Upon receipt of a request to abort the transaction, the server is to 127 abort the transaction and then return an endGroupingResponse 128 indicating success. 130 Upon receipt of a request to commit the transaction, the server 131 processes the group of update operations as one atomic, isolated 132 action with each update request being processed in turn. Either all 133 of the requested updates SHALL be successfully applied or none of the 134 requested SHALL be applied. If all are applied, the server returns an 135 endGroupingResponse indicating success. Otherwise, the server returns 136 an endGroupingResponse indicating the nature of the failure. If the 137 failure is associated with a particular update operation, the message 138 ID is returned an attached endGroupingValue. If the failure was not 139 associated with any particular update operation, no endGroupingValue 140 is to be provided. 142 There is no requirement that a server serialize transactions. That 143 is, a server MAY process multiple transactions commit requests (from 144 one or more clients) acting upon different sets of entries 145 concurrently. A server MUST avoid deadlock. 147 4. Distributed Directory Considerations 149 The LDAP/X.500 models provide for distributed directory operations 150 including server-side chaining and client-side chasing of operations. 152 This document does not disallow servers from chaining operations which 153 are part of a transaction. However, if a server does allow such 154 chaining, it MUST ensure that transaction semantics detailed above are 155 provided. 157 This mechanism defined by this document does not support client-side 158 chasing. Grouping cookies used to identify the transaction are 159 specific to a particular client/server session. 161 The LDAP/X.500 models provide for a single-master/multiple-slave 162 replication architecture. This document states no requirement that 163 changes made to the directory based upon processing a transaction be 164 replicated as one atomic action. That is, the client SHOULD NOT 165 assume tight data consistency nor fast data convergence at slave 166 servers unless they have prior knowledge that such is provided. 167 Though this mechanism could be used to support replication, such use 168 is not described in this document. 170 The LDAP/X.500 models do not currently support a multi-master 171 replication architecture and, hence, not considered by this 172 specification. 174 5. Security Considerations 176 Transactions mechanisms and related grouping operations may be the 177 target of denial of service attacks. Implementors should provide 178 safeguards to ensure these mechanisms are not abused. 180 6. IANA Considerations 182 In accordance with [RFC3383], it is requested that Internet Assigned 183 Numbers Authority (IANA) make the following assignments. 185 6.1. Object Identifier 187 An LDAP Object Identifier to identify the grouping type defined in 188 this document is requested. 190 The following registration template is suggested: 192 Subject: Request for LDAP Object Identifier Registration 193 Person & email address to contact for further information: 194 Kurt Zeilenga 195 Specification: RFCXXXX 196 Author/Change Controller: IESG 197 Comments: 198 Identifies the LDAP Transactions Grouping Type 200 6.2. LDAP Protocol Mechanism 202 Registration of the protocol mechanisms defined in this document is 203 requested. 205 Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechansism Registration 207 Object Identifier: IANA-ASSIGNED-OID 208 Description: LDAP Transaction Grouping Type 209 Person & email address to contact for further information: 210 Kurt Zeilenga 211 Usage: Grouping 212 Specification: RFCxxxx 213 Author/Change Controller: IESG 214 Comments: none 216 7. Acknowledgments 218 The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions made by members 219 of the Internet Engineering Task Force. 221 8. Author's Address 223 Kurt D. Zeilenga 224 OpenLDAP Foundation 225 227 9. Normative References 229 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate 230 Requirement Levels", BCP 14 (also RFC 2119), March 1997. 232 [RFC2251] M. Wahl, S. Kille, T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access 233 Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. 235 [RFC3377] J. Hodges, R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access 236 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002. 238 [GROUP] K. Zeilenga, "LDAP: Grouping of Related Operations", 239 draft-zeilenga-ldap-grouping-xx.txt, a work in progress. 241 [X.680] ITU-T, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification 242 of Basic Notation", X.680, 1994. 244 [X.690] ITU-T, "Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic, 245 Canonical, and Distinguished Encoding Rules", X.690, 1994. 247 10. Informative References 249 [ACID] Section 4 of ISO/IEC 10026-1:1992. 251 [RFC3383] K. Zeilenga, "IANA Considerations for LDAP", BCP 64 (also 252 RFC 3383), September 2002. 254 [X.500] ITU-T, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts, Models, and 255 Services", X.500, 1993. 257 [X.501] ITU-T, "The Directory: Models", X.501, 1993. 259 Copyright 2003, The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. 261 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished 262 to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain 263 it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 264 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 265 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 266 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, 267 this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by 268 removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society 269 or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose 270 of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 271 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, 272 or as required to translate it into languages other than English. 274 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not 275 be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 277 This document and the information contained herein is provided on 278 an "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHORS, THE INTERNET SOCIETY, AND THE 279 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 280 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE 281 OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 282 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.