draft-ietf-pkix-ldap-pki-schema-00.txt

PKIX的RFC英文文档

7. Filter Examples

The following examples are written using the string representation of 
Search filters defined in [18]. Line-breaks have been added as an aid to 
readability.

i) To match on the serial number of a PKI certificate using 
extensibleMatch with component matching

       (userCertificate:componentFilterMatch:=
       item:{ component "serialNumber", rule integerMatch,
       value 12345 })

ii) To exactly match one certificate using extensibleMatch with 
certificateExactMatch and GSERCertificateExactAssertion 

       (userCertificate:certificateExactMatch:= {serialNumber 12345 ,
       issuer rdnSequence: "O=truetrust ltd, C=GB" } )


iii) To exactly match one certificate using equalityMatch with 
certificateExactMatch and GSERCertificateExactAssertion

      (UserCertificate= {serialNumber 12345 , issuer rdnSequence:
       "O=truetrust ltd, C=GB" })

iv) To exactly match one certificate using equalityMatch with 
certificateExactMatch and SimpleCertificateExactAssertion

      (UserCertificate=12345$O=truetrust ltd, C=GB)

v) To exactly match one certificate using extensibleMatch with component 
matching

      (userCertificate:componentFilterMatch:=and:{
      item:{ component "serialNumber", rule integerMatch, value 12345 },
      item:{ component "issuer.rdnSequence", rule
      distinguishedNameMatch, value "O=truetrust ltd, C=GB"  } })

vi) To match on certificates containing a certain email address as a 
subjectAltName

      (userCertificate:componentFilterMatch:=item:{
       component "toBeSigned.extensions.*.extnValue.
       content.(2.5.29.17).*.rfc822Name",
       rule caseIgnoreIA5Match, value "[e-mail]" })


8. Security Considerations

This [Internet Draft/Standard] describes the schema for the storage
and matching of attribute certificates and revocation lists in an
LDAP directory server. It does not address the protocol for the
retrieval of this information.

LDAP servers SHOULD use access control information to protect the
information during its storage. In addition, clients MAY choose to
encrypt the attributes in the attribute certificates before storing
them in an LDAP server.


9. References
Normative

[1] Bradner, S. The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3. RFC
2026  October 1996.

[4] J. Sermersheim "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)" <draft-
ietf-ldapbis-protocol-02.txt> July 2001

[5] S.Bradner. "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

[6] M. Wahl, S. Kille, T. Howes. "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names",
RFC2253, December 1997.

[9] ITU-T Rec. X.509(2000) The  Directory:  Authentication
Framework

[10] D. Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997

[13] S. Legg, "Generic String Encoding Rules", <draft-legg-ldap-gser-
XX.txt>, March 2002, a work in progress

[16] S. Legg, "Common Elements of GSER Encodings", <draft-legg-ldap-
gser-abnf-XX.txt>, March 2002, a work in progress

Informative

[2] Yeong, W., Howes, T., and Kille, S. "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995.

[8] S.Boeyen, T. Howes, P. Richard "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure, LDAPv2 Schema", RFC 2587, June 1999

[12] Howes, T., Kille, S., Yeong, W., Robbins, C., "The String 
Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes", RFC 1778, March 1995

[14] R. Housley, W. Ford, W Polk, D. Solo. "Internet X.509 Public Key 
Infrastructure - Certificate and CRL Profile" <draft-ietf-pkix-new-
part1-08.txt>, July 2001

[17] M. Wahl, "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use with 
LDAPv3", RFC 2256, Dec 1997

[18] Howes, T. "The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters". RFC 
2254, December 1997.


10. Intellectual Property Notice

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has
made any effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. [BCP-11]
Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification
can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard.
Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.


11. Copyright

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


12. Authors' Addresses

David Chadwick
IS Institute
University of Salford
Salford
England
M5 4WT

Email: [e-mail]


Steven Legg
Adacel Technologies Ltd.
405-409 Ferntree Gully Road,
Mount Waverley,
Victoria, 3149
Australia

Email: [e-mail]


13. Changes
 
>From <draft-pkix-ldap-schema-00.txt>

i) Added ABNF notation for all of the syntaxes.

ii) Removed the restriction on the syntax of Distribution Point Names.

iii) Removed constraints on IssuerSerial.

iv) Bug detected in X.509 AttributeCertificateExactMatch that will need
resolving.

v) Changed the string encodings for non-exact matches to keywords for 
each component instead of $ separators.

>From <draft-pkix-ldap-schema-01.txt>

i)	Added and corrected all X.509 PKI schema definitions, since these 
have been removed from RFC2252-bis.
ii)	Changed assertion syntaxes to use the syntax defined by Component 
Matching Rules
iii)	Included all the matching rules for AC extensions

>From <draft-pkix-ldap-schema-02.txt>

i)	Separation in PKI and PMI IDs.
ii)	Examples of filters have been added
iii)	Text has been added to mandate that servers must store and 
retrieve many of the syntaxes defined in this ID exactly as given.
iv)	The ;binary encoding option has been removed in accordance with 
work in the LDAPBIS group. A new LDAP-specific encoding has been 
defined which has exactly the same syntax as the old ;binary 
encoding.
v)	We have obsoleted RFC 2587 and RFC 2256 and copied the relevant 
schemas into this document.
vi)	We have added some new PKI schema appearing for the first time in 
X.509(2000) e.g. pkiPath

14. Outstanding Issues

i.	We need to decide if userSMIMECertificates should also be 
supported as part of this profile or not.
ii.	We have added a CPS attribute and a CPS pointer attribute. These 
are adapted from the certificationPracticeStmt attribute in the 
X.509 standard which is a choice of either the CPS or a pointer to 
it. However our pointer is simply a URI (as in the CPS qualifier 
extension in the PKIX profile) whereas the X.500 pointer is a 
GeneralName and an optional hash. Are these changes sensible and 
acceptable?
iii.	We have added a matching rule to the certificatePolicy attribute. 
No matching rule is defined in X.509, so we have reported this as 
a defect. Should we stick with the X.509 syntax or create two 
alternative attributes (a pointer and a policy) as in the CPS 
case.
iv.	We have made the matching rule for supportedAlgorithms as the 
objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch. RFC2256 did not specify any 
matching rule and X.509(2001) specifies a more complex matching 
rule. Should we align with X.509 or not?
15. Table of Contents

1. Introduction	1
2. Subschema Publishing	2
3. PKI Attributes and Syntaxes	2
3.1  userCertificate Attribute	2
3.2  cACertificate Attribute	2
3.3  Certificate Syntax	2
3.4 authorityRevocationList Attribute	3
3.5 certificateRevocationList Attribute	3
3.6 deltaRevocationList Attribute	3
3.7 Certificate List Syntax	3
3.8 crossCertificatePair Attribute	4
3.9	Certificate Pair Syntax	4
3.10	PKI Path Attribute	4
3.11  PKI Path Syntax	5
3.12  CPS Attribute	5
3.13  CPS Pointer Attribute	5
3.14 Certificate Policy Attribute	5
3.15 Certificate Policy Syntax	5
3.16  Certificate Policy Pointer Attribute	6
3.17  Supported Algorithms Attribute	6
3.18 Supported Algorithm Syntax	6
4. Public Key Certificate Matching Rules and Assertion Syntaxes	6
4.1  Certificate Exact Match	7
4.2 Certificate Match	8
4.3 Certificate Pair Exact Match	12
4.4 Certificate Pair Match	12
5 Certificate Revocation List Matching Rules	13
5.1  Certificate List Exact Match	13
5.2 Certificate List Match	14
6. PKI Object Classes	15
6.1 PKI user object class	15
6.2 PKI CA object class	16
6.3 CRL Distribution Point object class	16
6.4 Delta CRL object class	16
6.5 Certificate Policy and CPS object class	16
6.6 PKI Certification Path object class	16
7. Filter Examples	16
8. Security Considerations	17
9. References	18
Normative	18
Informative	18
10. Intellectual Property Notice	18
11. Copyright	19
12. Authors' Addresses	19
13. Changes	20
14. Outstanding Issues	20
15. Table of Contents	21