Network Working Group K. Zeilenga Request for Comments: 3672 OpenLDAP Foundation Category: Standards Track S. Legg Adacel Technologies December 2003
Subentries in the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
In X.500 directories, subentries are special entries used to hold information associated with a subtree or subtree refinement. This document adapts X.500 subentries mechanisms for use with the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).
A subentry is a special kind of entry immediately subordinate to an administrative point. It contains attributes that pertain to a subtree (or subtree refinement) associated with its administrative point. The subentries and their administrative point are part of the same naming context.
A single subentry may serve all or several aspects of administrative authority. Alternatively, a specific aspect of administrative authority may be handled through one or more of its own subentries.
Subentries in the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [RFC3377] SHALL behave in accordance with X.501 unless noted otherwise in this specification.
Zeilenga & Legg Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3672 Subentries in LDAP December 2003
In absence of the subentries control (detailed in Section 3), subentries SHALL NOT be considered in one-level and subtree scope search operations. For all other operations, including base scope search operations, subentries SHALL be considered.
Schema definitions are provided using LDAP description formats [RFC2252]. Definitions provided here are formatted (line wrapped) for readability.
Protocol elements are described using ASN.1 [X.680]. The term "BER- encoded" means the element is to be encoded using the Basic Encoding Rules [X.690] under the restrictions detailed in Section 5.1 of [RFC2251].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119].
The Subtree Specification syntax provides a general purpose mechanism for the specification of a subset of entries in a subtree of the Directory Information Tree (DIT). A subtree begins at some base entry and includes the subordinates of that entry down to some identified lower boundary, possibly extending to the leaf entries. A subtree specification is always used within a context or scope which implicitly determines the bounds of the subtree. For example, the scope of a subtree specification for a subschema administrative area does not include the subtrees of any subordinate administrative point entries for subschema administration. Where a subtree specification does not identify a contiguous subset of the entries within a single subtree the collection is termed a subtree refinement.
This syntax corresponds to the SubtreeSpecification ASN.1 type described in [X.501], Section 11.3. This ASN.1 data type definition is reproduced here for completeness.
SubtreeSpecification ::= SEQUENCE { base [0] LocalName DEFAULT { }, COMPONENTS OF ChopSpecification, specificationFilter [4] Refinement OPTIONAL }
LocalName ::= RDNSequence
Zeilenga & Legg Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3672 Subentries in LDAP December 2003
ChopSpecification ::= SEQUENCE { specificExclusions [1] SET OF CHOICE { chopBefore [0] LocalName, chopAfter [1] LocalName } OPTIONAL, minimum [2] BaseDistance DEFAULT 0, maximum [3] BaseDistance OPTIONAL }
BaseDistance ::= INTEGER (0 .. MAX)
Refinement ::= CHOICE { item [0] OBJECT-CLASS.&id, and [1] SET OF Refinement, or [2] SET OF Refinement, not [3] Refinement }
The components of SubtreeSpecification are: base, which identifies the base entry of the subtree or subtree refinement, and specificExclusions, minimum, maximum and specificationFilter, which then reduce the set of subordinate entries of the base entry. The subtree or subtree refinement contains all the entries within scope that are not excluded by any of the components of the subtree specification. When all of the components of SubtreeSpecification are absent (i.e., when a value of the Subtree Specification syntax is the empty sequence, {}), the specified subtree implicitly includes all the entries within scope.
Any particular use of this mechanism MAY impose limitations or constraints on the components of SubtreeSpecification.
The LDAP-specific encoding of values of this syntax is defined by the Generic String Encoding Rules [RFC3641]. Appendix A provides an equivalent Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC2234] for this syntax.
The base component of SubtreeSpecification nominates the base entry of the subtree or subtree refinement. The base entry may be an entry which is subordinate to the root entry of the scope in which the subtree specification is used, in which case the base component contains a sequence of Relative Distinguished Names (RDNs) relative to the root entry of the scope, or may be the root entry of the scope itself (the default), in which case the base component is absent or contains an empty sequence of RDNs.
Zeilenga & Legg Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3672 Subentries in LDAP December 2003
Entries that are not subordinates of the base entry are excluded from the subtree or subtree refinement.
The specificExclusions component of a ChopSpecification is a list of exclusions that specify entries and their subordinates to be excluded from the subtree or subtree refinement. The entry is specified by a sequence of RDNs relative to the base entry (i.e., a LocalName). Each exclusion is of either the chopBefore or chopAfter form. If the chopBefore form is used then the specified entry and its subordinates are excluded from the subtree or subtree refinement. If the chopAfter form is used then only the subordinates of the specified entry are excluded from the subtree or subtree refinement.
The minimum and maximum components of a ChopSpecification allow the exclusion of entries based on their depth in the DIT.
Entries that are less than the minimum number of RDN arcs below the base entry are excluded from the subtree or subtree refinement. A minimum value of zero (the default) corresponds to the base entry.
Entries that are more than the maximum number of RDN arcs below the base entry are excluded from the subtree or subtree refinement. An absent maximum component indicates that there is no upper limit on the number of RDN arcs below the base entry for entries in the subtree or subtree refinement.
The specificationFilter component is a boolean expression of assertions about the values of the objectClass attribute of the base entry and its subordinates. A Refinement assertion item evaluates to true for an entry if that entry's objectClass attribute contains the OID nominated in the assertion. Entries for which the overall filter evaluates to false are excluded from the subtree refinement. If the specificationFilter is absent then no entries are excluded from the subtree or subtree refinement because of their objectClass attribute values.
The Administrative Model defined in [X.501], clause 10 requires that administrative entries contain an administrativeRole attribute to indicate that the associated administrative area is concerned with one or more administrative roles.
The administrativeRole operational attribute is specified as follows:
The possible values of this attribute defined in X.501 are:
OID NAME -------- ------------------------------- 2.5.23.1 autonomousArea 2.5.23.2 accessControlSpecificArea 2.5.23.3 accessControlInnerArea 2.5.23.4 subschemaAdminSpecificArea 2.5.23.5 collectiveAttributeSpecificArea 2.5.23.6 collectiveAttributeInnerArea
Other values may be defined in other specifications. Names associated with each administrative role are Object Identifier Descriptors [RFC3383].
The administrativeRole operational attribute is also used to regulate the subentries permitted to be subordinate to an administrative entry. A subentry not of a class permitted by the administrativeRole attribute cannot be subordinate to the administrative entry.
The subtreeSpecification operational attribute is defined as follows:
( 2.5.18.6 NAME 'subtreeSpecification' SINGLE-VALUE USAGE directoryOperation SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.45 )
This attribute is present in all subentries. See [X.501], clause 10. Values of the subtreeSpecification attribute nominate collections of entries within the DIT for one or more aspects of administrative authority.
The subentries control MAY be sent with a searchRequest to control the visibility of entries and subentries which are within scope. Non-visible entries or subentries are not returned in response to the request.
The subentries control is an LDAP Control whose controlType is 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.10.1, criticality is TRUE or FALSE (hence absent), and controlValue contains a BER-encoded BOOLEAN indicating visibility. A controlValue containing the value TRUE indicates that subentries are visible and normal entries are not. A controlValue containing the value FALSE indicates that normal entries are visible and subentries are not.
Note that TRUE visibility has the three octet encoding { 01 01 FF } and FALSE visibility has the three octet encoding { 01 01 00 }.
The controlValue SHALL NOT be absent.
In absence of this control, subentries are not visible to singleLevel and wholeSubtree scope Search requests but are visible to baseObject scope Search requests.
There is no corresponding response control.
This control is not appropriate for non-Search operations.
Subentries often hold administrative information or other sensitive information and should be protected from unauthorized access and disclosure as described in [RFC2829][RFC2830].
General LDAP [RFC3377] security considerations also apply.
The IANA has registered the LDAP descriptors detailed in this technical specification. The following registration template is suggested:
Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration Descriptor (short name): see comment Object Identifier: see comment Person & email address to contact for further information: Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@OpenLDAP.org> Usage: see comment Specification: RFC3672 Author/Change Controller: IESG Comments:
NAME Type OID ------------------------ ---- -------- accessControlInnerArea R 2.5.23.3 accessControlSpecificArea R 2.5.23.2 administrativeRole A 2.5.18.5 autonomousArea R 2.5.23.1 collectiveAttributeInnerArea R 2.5.23.6 collectiveAttributeSpecificArea R 2.5.23.5 subentry O 2.5.17.0 subschemaAdminSpecificArea R 2.5.23.4 subtreeSpecification A 2.5.18.6
where Type A is Attribute, Type O is ObjectClass, and Type R is Administrative Role.
This document uses the OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.10.1 to identify an LDAP protocol element defined herein. This OID was assigned [ASSIGN] by OpenLDAP Foundation, under its IANA-assigned private enterprise allocation [PRIVATE], for use in this specification.
Other OIDs which appear in this document were either assigned by the ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 - Subcommittee 6 to identify elements of X.500 schema or assigned in RFC 2252 for the use described here.
This document is based on engineering done by IETF LDUP and LDAPext Working Groups including "LDAP Subentry Schema" by Ed Reed. This document also borrows from a number of ITU documents including X.501.
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. 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.
The LDAP-specific string encoding for the Subtree Specification syntax is specified by the Generic String Encoding Rules [RFC3641]. The ABNF [RFC2234] in this appendix for this syntax is provided only as a convenience and is equivalent to the encoding specified by the application of [RFC3641]. Since the SubtreeSpecification ASN.1 type may be extended in future editions of [X.501], the provided ABNF should be regarded as a snapshot in time. The LDAP-specific encoding for any extension to the SubtreeSpecification ASN.1 type can be determined from [RFC3641].
In the event that there is a discrepancy between this ABNF and the encoding determined by [RFC3641], [RFC3641] is to be taken as definitive.
The <sp>, <msp>, <sep>, <INTEGER>, <INTEGER-0-MAX>, <OBJECT- IDENTIFIER> and <LocalName> rules are defined in [RFC3642].
Normative References
[X.501] ITU-T, "The Directory -- Models," X.501, 1993.
[X.680] ITU-T, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification of Basic Notation", X.680, 1994.
[X.690] ITU-T, "Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic, Canonical, and Distinguished Encoding Rules", X.690, 1994.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
[RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.
[RFC2829] Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000.
[RFC2830] Hodges, J., Morgan, R. and M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security", RFC 2830, May 2000.
[RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002.
Zeilenga & Legg Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3672 Subentries in LDAP December 2003
[RFC3383] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)", RFC 3383, September 2002.
[RFC3641] Legg, S., "Generic String Encoding Rules (GSER) for ASN.1 Types", RFC 3641, October 2003.
Informative References
[RFC2234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[RFC3642] Legg, S., "Common Elements of Generic String Encoding Rules (GSER) Encodings", RFC 3642, October 2003.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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 assignees.
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.