rfc1487.txt
来自「RFC 的详细文档!」· 文本 代码 · 共 1,179 行 · 第 1/4 页
TXT
1,179 行
Network Working Group W. Yeong
Request for Comments: 1487 Performance Systems International
T. Howes
University of Michigan
S. Kille
ISODE Consortium
July 1993
X.500 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
Status of this Memo
This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet
community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
The protocol described in this document is designed to provide access
to the Directory while not incurring the resource requirements of the
Directory Access Protocol (DAP). This protocol is specifically
targeted at simple management applications and browser applications
that provide simple read/write interactive access to the Directory,
and is intended to be a complement to the DAP itself.
Key aspects of LDAP are:
- Protocol elements are carried directly over TCP or other transport,
bypassing much of the session/presentation overhead.
- Many protocol data elements are encoding as ordinary strings (e.g.,
Distinguished Names).
- A lightweight BER encoding is used to encode all protocol elements.
1. History
The tremendous interest in X.500 [1,2] technology in the Internet has
lead to efforts to reduce the high "cost of entry" associated with
use of the technology, such as the Directory Assistance Service [3]
and DIXIE [4]. While efforts such as these have met with success,
they have been solutions based on particular implementations and as
such have limited applicability. This document continues the efforts
to define Directory protocol alternatives but departs from previous
efforts in that it consciously avoids dependence on particular
Yeong, Howes & Kille [Page 1]
RFC 1487 X.500 LDAP July 1993
implementations.
2. Protocol Model
The general model adopted by this protocol is one of clients
performing protocol operations against servers. In this model, this
is accomplished by a client transmitting a protocol request
describing the operation to be performed to a server, which is then
responsible for performing the necessary operations on the Directory.
Upon completion of the necessary operations, the server returns a
response containing any results or errors to the requesting client.
In keeping with the goal of easing the costs associated with use of
the Directory, it is an objective of this protocol to minimize the
complexity of clients so as to facilitate widespread deployment of
applications capable of utilizing the Directory.
Note that, although servers are required to return responses whenever
such responses are defined in the protocol, there is no requirement
for synchronous behavior on the part of either client or server
implementations: requests and responses for multiple operations may
be exchanged by client and servers in any order, as long as clients
eventually receive a response for every request that requires one.
Consistent with the model of servers performing protocol operations
on behalf of clients, it is also to be noted that protocol servers
are expected to handle referrals without resorting to the return of
such referrals to the client. This protocol makes no provisions for
the return of referrals to clients, as the model is one of servers
ensuring the performance of all necessary operations in the
Directory, with only final results or errors being returned by
servers to clients.
Note that this protocol can be mapped to a strict subset of the
directory abstract service, so it can be cleanly provided by the DAP.
3. Mapping Onto Transport Services
This protocol is designed to run over connection-oriented, reliable
transports, with all 8 bits in an octet being significant in the data
stream. Specifications for two underlying services are defined here,
though others are also possible.
3.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
The LDAPMessage PDUs are mapped directly onto the TCP bytestream.
Server implementations running over the TCP should provide a protocol
listener on port 389.
Yeong, Howes & Kille [Page 2]
RFC 1487 X.500 LDAP July 1993
3.2. Connection Oriented Transport Service (COTS)
The connection is established. No special special use of T-Connect
is made. Each LDAPMessage PDU is mapped directly onto T-Data.
4. Elements of Protocol
For the purposes of protocol exchanges, all protocol operations are
encapsulated in a common envelope, the LDAPMessage, which is defined
as follows:
LDAPMessage ::=
SEQUENCE {
messageID MessageID,
protocolOp CHOICE {
bindRequest BindRequest,
bindResponse BindResponse,
unbindRequest UnbindRequest
searchRequest SearchRequest,
searchResponse SearchResponse,
modifyRequest ModifyRequest,
modifyResponse ModifyResponse,
addRequest AddRequest,
addResponse AddResponse,
delRequest DelRequest,
delResponse DelResponse,
modifyRDNRequest ModifyRDNRequest,
modifyRDNResponse ModifyRDNResponse,
compareDNRequest CompareRequest,
compareDNResponse CompareResponse,
abandonRequest AbandonRequest
}
}
MessageID ::= INTEGER (0 .. MaxInt)
The function of the LDAPMessage is to provide an envelope containing
common fields required in all protocol exchanges. At this time the
only common field is a message ID, which is required to have a value
different from the values of any other requests outstanding in the
LDAP session of which this message is a part.
The message ID value must be echoed in all LDAPMessage envelopes
encapsulting responses corresponding to the request contained in the
LDAPMessage in which the message ID value was originally used.
In addition to the LDAPMessage defined above, the following
definitions are also used in defining protocol operations:
Yeong, Howes & Kille [Page 3]
RFC 1487 X.500 LDAP July 1993
IA5String ::= OCTET STRING
The IA5String is a notational convenience to indicate that, although
strings of IA5String type encode as OCTET STRING types, the legal
character set in such strings is limited to the IA5 character set.
LDAPDN ::= IA5String
RelativeLDAPDN ::= IA5String
An LDAPDN and a RelativeLDAPDN are respectively defined to be the
representation of a Distinguished Name and a Relative Distinguished
Name after encoding according to the specification in [5], such that
<distinguished-name> ::= <name>
<relative-distinguished-name> ::= <name-component>
where <name> and <name-component> are as defined in [5].
AttributeValueAssertion ::=
SEQUENCE {
attributeType AttributeType
attributeValue AttributeValue
}
The AttributeValueAssertion type definition is similar to the one in
the Directory standards.
AttributeType ::= IA5String
AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING
An AttributeType value takes on as its value the textual string
associated with that AttributeType in the Directory standards. For
example, the AttributeType 'organizationName' with object identifier
2.5.4.10 is represented as an AttributeType in this protocol by the
string "organizationName". In the event that a protocol
implementation encounters an Attribute Type with which it cannot
associate a textual string, an ASCII string encoding of the object
identifier associated with the Attribute Type may be subsitituted.
For example, the organizationName AttributeType may be represented by
the ASCII string "2.5.4.10" if a protocol implementation is unable to
associate the string "organizationName" with it.
A field of type AttributeValue takes on as its value an octet string
encoding of a Directory AttributeValue type. The definition of these
string encodings for different Directory AttributeValue types may be
Yeong, Howes & Kille [Page 4]
RFC 1487 X.500 LDAP July 1993
found in companions to this document that define the encodings of
various attribute syntaxes such as [6].
LDAPResult ::=
SEQUENCE {
resultCode ENUMERATED {
success (0),
operationsError (1),
protocolError (2),
timeLimitExceeded (3),
sizeLimitExceeded (4),
compareFalse (5),
compareTrue (6),
authMethodNotSupported (7),
strongAuthRequired (8),
noSuchAttribute (16),
undefinedAttributeType (17),
inappropriateMatching (18),
constraintViolation (19),
attributeOrValueExists (20),
invalidAttributeSyntax (21),
noSuchObject (32),
aliasProblem (33),
invalidDNSyntax (34),
isLeaf (35),
aliasDereferencingProblem (36),
inappropriateAuthentication (48),
invalidCredentials (49),
insufficientAccessRights (50),
busy (51),
unavailable (52),
unwillingToPerform (53),
loopDetect (54),
namingViolation (64),
objectClassViolation (65),
notAllowedOnNonLeaf (66),
notAllowedOnRDN (67),
entryAlreadyExists (68),
objectClassModsProhibited (69),
other (80)
},
matchedDN LDAPDN,
errorMessage IA5String
}
The LDAPResult is the construct used in this protocol to return
success or failure indications from servers to clients. In response
to various requests, servers will return responses containing fields
Yeong, Howes & Kille [Page 5]
RFC 1487 X.500 LDAP July 1993
of type LDAPResult to indicate the final status of a protocol
operation request. The errorMessage field of this construct may, at
the servers option, be used to return an ASCII string containing a
textual, human-readable error diagnostic. As this error diagnostic is
not standardized, implementations should not rely on the values
returned. If the server chooses not to return a textual diagnostic,
the errorMessage field of the LDAPResult type should contain a zero
length string.
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码Ctrl + C
搜索代码Ctrl + F
全屏模式F11
增大字号Ctrl + =
减小字号Ctrl + -
显示快捷键?