rfc2926.txt
来自「中、英文RFC文档大全打包下载完全版 .」· 文本 代码 · 共 1,516 行 · 第 1/4 页
TXT
1,516 行
EQUALITY MATCHING RULE integerMatch SINGLE VALUE ID { <oid6> } } - Boot time mount pass number. mountPassNo ATTRIBUTE ::= { WITH SYNTAX INTEGER EQUALITY MATCHING RULE integerMatch SINGLE VALUE ID { <oid7> } } The translated SLP template is: template-type = mount template-version = 1.0 template-description = "Describes a remote filesystem access protocol" template-url-syntax = filesystem = 1*[ DIGIT / ALPHA ] urlpath = "/" filesystem mountHost = STRING L # ASN.1: Case Ignore String, Single Value # The mount host mountDirectory = STRING L # ASN.1: Case Ignore String, Single Value # The filesystem to mountKempf, et al. Informational [Page 21]RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 mountType = STRING L ufs # ASN.1: Enumeration, Single Value # ASN.1 Mapping: ufs = 1, hsfs = 2, nfs = 3, rfs = 4 # The type of the filesystem being mounted ufs, hsfs, nfs, rfs mountOption = STRING M O L # ASN.1: Case Ignore String # mount options for this filesystem mountDumpFrequency = INTEGER O 0 # ASN.1: Integer Range, Single Value # How often to dump this filesystem 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 mountPassNo = INTEGER O # ASN.1: Integer, Single Value # Boot time mount pass number5.0 Representing SLP Service Advertisements in an LDAP DIT In addition to translating between SLP templates and LDAP schema, another area requiring compatibility is the representation of SLP service advertisements in an LDAP DIT. A standardized representation for service information allows SLP DAs to store service advertisements in LDAP, and for LDAP clients to query the DIT for those services. Similarly, if LDAP clients represent service information in the same form, SLP clients can benefit from interoperability. A service advertisement contains the service URL in a 'labeledURI' attribute [11]. The labeledURI attribute in a service advertisement should only contain the service URL for the service, with no additional label. It is recommended that the labeledURI be used as the RDN for the service object in the DIT. Although service advertisements can appear anywhere within the DIT, it is recommended that all services be stored under a single common point, or root node, to facilitate searching in a domain. This allows a client to search for all of advertisements of a particular service type, say, for all printers. The recommended parent entry is one named "ou=service" below the entry which is the representation of the domain, as described in RFC 2247.Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 22]RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 For example, a printer service with labeledURI of "service:lpr://printsrv/queue1" in the domain foobar.com advertised in the LDAP server that holds the entry "dc=foobar,dc=com" tree has the following DN: "labeledURI=service:lpr://printsrv/queue1, ou=service, dc=foobar, dc=com" While this leads to a flat space of service storage, since SLP uses search filters from LDAP for searches, these filters can be used for one-level searches from the root node. The following example illustrates how an advertisement having a simple service type is represented. The advertisement (in conceptual form) for a printer is: Service Type: service:lpr://printsrv/queue1 Scopes: eng,corp Attributes: description = A general printer for all to use. security-mechanisms-supported = none Authentication: none The RDN of the object is labeledURI=service:lpr://printsrv/queue1, and the following LDAP search filter will return this object, along with any others of the service type "service:lpr" that match the other attributes: (&(service-advert-service-type=service:lpr) (service-advert-scopes=eng) (service-advert-scopes=corp) (description=A general printer for all to use.) (security-mechanisms-supported=none)) Service advertisements in SLP also have a lease time associated with them. In LDAP servers that support the extensions for dynamic directory services [12], the service advertisement entry objectClass should be extended with the dynamicObject class. This allows the service advertisement to time out within the LDAP directory server. If the LDAP directory server does not support the dynamic directory services extension, then advertisement lease timeouts must be handled by the SLP agent. While the service advertisement schema outlined in this section is primarily for SLP DAs that use LDAP as a backing store, if LDAP agents register services using the same format, complete interoperability with SLP is achieved.Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 23]RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 20006.0 Internationalization Considerations SLP specifies that an RFC 1766 [13] language code accompanies every service advertisement. Language codes for service advertisements in LDAP must be represented according to RFC 2596 [14]. RFC 2596 prohibits language codes in DNs, and specifies that a directory server which does not support language codes must treat an attribute with a language code as an unrecognized attributes. According to RFC 2596, language codes are appended to attribute names with a semicolon (";"). For example, the following attribute/value pair is in the German locale: (address;lang-de=44 Bahnhofstrasse, 2365 Weibstadt, Deutschland) An attribute with a language tag in a specific locale is considered a separate attribute from attributes in other locales. If the service advertisement is in the default SLP locale ("en", no dialect), then the language code need not be appended to the attribute name. SLP queries in locales other than the default need not be rewritten to include language tags before being submitted to the directory server. RFC 2596 specifies that all entries that match are returned, including those with language tags, without requiring the language tags to be explicitly present in the query. The SLP DA can then postprocess the result to select the entries from the required locale.7.0 Security Considerations SLP authenticators are stored with the service advertisement in the DIT, as discussed in Section~7ef{slpdit}. LDAP clients need to use LDAP authentication [15] to assure that they are connecting with a secure server. In particular, SLP DAs that use LDAP as a back end store and that implement SLP authentication MUST use LDAP authentication to assure that the LDAP entries for their service registrations are secure.Acknowledgements Many thanks are due to Mark Wahl whose detailed and insightful comments were instrumental in helping improve the technical accuracy of this document with respect to LDAP.Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 24]RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 20008.0 References [1] Guttman, E., Perkins, C. and J. Kempf, "Service Templates and service: Schemes", RFC 2609, April 1999. [2] Wahl, W., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. [3] International Telecommunications Union. The Directory:Selected Attribute Types. ITU Recommendation X.520. August, 1997. [4] McLaughlin, L., "Line Printer Daemon Protocol, RFC 1179, August 1990. [5] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service Location Protocol Version 2", RFC 2608, April 1999. [6] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. [7] Howes, T., "The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters", RFC 2254, December 1997. [8] Wahl, W., Coulbeck, A., Howe, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definition", RFC 2252, December 1997. [9] ITU-T Rec. X.680. Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification of Basic Notation. 1994. [10] Fleming, P., Jones, K., Lewis, H., and McDonald, I., "Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services", Work in Progress. [11] Smith, M., "Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 2079, January 1997. [12] Yaacovi, Y., Wahl, M. and T. Genovese, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services", RFC 2589, May 1999. [13] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC 1766, December 1997. [14] Wahl, M. and T. Howes, "Use of Language Codes in LDAP", RFC 2596, May 1999.Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 25]RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 2000 [15] Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000. [16] Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [17] Dubuisson, O. ASN.1: Communication between Heterogeneous Systems. OSS Nokalva, 2000. [18] http://www.srvloc.org9.0 Authors' Addresses James Kempf Sun Microsystems 901 San Antonio Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA Phone: +1 650 786-5890 EMail: james.kempf@sun.com Ryan Moats Coreon, Inc. 15621 Drexel Circle Omaha, NE, 68135 USA EMail: rmoats@coreon.net Pete St. Pierre Sun Microsystems 901 San Antonio Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA Phone: +1 415 786-5790 EMail: Pete.StPierre@Eng.Sun.COMKempf, et al. Informational [Page 26]RFC 2926 Conversion of LDAP Schemas September 200010. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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.Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.Kempf, et al. Informational [Page 27]
⌨️ 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?