1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
|
<pre>Network Working Group A. Young
Request for Comments: 1798 ISODE Consortium
Category: Standards Track June 1995
<span class="h1">Connection-less Lightweight X.500 Directory Access Protocol</span>
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.
X.500
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) [<a href="#ref-3" title="ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21; International Standard 9594-3">3</a>]. In particular, it is aimed at
avoiding the elapsed time that is associated with connection-oriented
communication and it facilitates use of the Directory in a manner
analagous to the DNS [<a href="#ref-5" title=""Domain Names - Implementation and Specification"">5</a>,<a href="#ref-6" title=""Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities"">6</a>]. It is specifically targeted at simple
lookup applications that require to read a small number of attribute
values from a single entry. It is intended to be a complement to DAP
and LDAP [<a href="#ref-4" title=""X.500 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol"">4</a>]. The protocol specification draws heavily on that of
LDAP.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Background</span>
The Directory can be used as a repository for many kinds of
information. The full power of DAP is unnecessary for applications
that require simple read access to a few attribute values.
Applications addressing is a good example of this type of use where
an application entity needs to determine the Presentation Address
(PA) of a peer entity given that peer's Application Entity Title
(AET). If the AET is a Directory Name (DN) then the required result
can be obtained from the PA attribute of the Directory entry
identified by the AET. This is very similar to DNS.
<span class="grey">Young Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1798">RFC 1798</a> CLDAP June 1995</span>
Use of DAP to achieve this functionality involves a significant
number of network exchanges:
___________________________________________________________
|_#_|______Client_(DUA)________DAP________Server_(DSA)_____|
| 1| N-Connect.request -> |
| 2| <- N-Connect.response |
| 3| T-Connect.request -> |
| 4| <- T-Connect.response |
| | S-Connect.request, |
| | P-Connect.request, |
| | A-Associate.request, |
| 5| DAP-Bind.request -> |
| | S-Connect.response, |
| | P-Connect.response, |
| | A-Associate.response, |
| 6| <- DAP-Bind.response |
| 7| DAP-Read.request -> |
| 8| <- DAP-Read.response |
| | S-Release.request, |
| | P-Release.request, |
| | A-Release.request, |
| 9| DAP-Unbind.request -> |
| | S-Release.response, |
| | P-Release.response, |
| | A-Release.response, |
| 10| <- DAP-Unbind.response |
| | T-Disconnect.request, |
| 11| N-Disconnect.request -> |
| | T-Disconnect.response,|
| 12| <- N-Disconnect.response |
|___|______________________________________________________|
<span class="grey">Young Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1798">RFC 1798</a> CLDAP June 1995</span>
This is 10 packets before the application can continue, given that it
can probably do so after issuing the T-Disconnect.request. (Some
minor variations arise depending upon the class of Network and
Transport service that is being used; for example use of TP4 over
CLNS reduces the packet count by two.) LDAP is no better in the case
where the LDAP server uses full DAP to communicate with the
Directory:
____________________________________________________________________
|__#_|___Client_____LDAP_____LDAP_server______DAP_________DSA_______|
| 1 | TCP SYN -> |
| 2 | <- TCP SYN ACK |
| 3 | BindReq -> |
| 4 | N-Connect.req -> |
| 5 | <- N-Connect.res |
| 6 | T-Connect.req -> |
| 7 | <- T-Connect.res |
| 8 | DAP-Bind.req -> |
| 9 | <- DAP-Bind.res |
| 10 | <- BindRes |
| 11 | SearchReq -> |
| 12 | DAP-Search.req -> |
| 13 | <- DAP-Search.res |
| 14 | <- SearchRes |
| 15 | TCP FIN -> |
| 16 | DAP-Unbind.req -> |
| 17 | <- DAP-Unbind.res |
| 18 | N-Disconnect.req -> |
| 19 | <- N-Disconnect.res|
|____|______________________________________________________________|
<span class="grey">Young Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1798">RFC 1798</a> CLDAP June 1995</span>
Here there are 14 packets before the application can continue. Even
if the LDAP server is on the same host as the DSA (so packet delay is
negligible), or if the DSA supports LDAP directly, then there are
still 6 packets.
____________________________________
| #| Client LDAP LDAP server|
|__|________________________________|
| 1| TCP SYN -> |
| 2| <- TCP SYN ACK|
| 3| BindReq -> |
| 4| <- BindRes |
| 5| SearchReq -> |
|_6|_______________<-____SearchRes__|
This protocol provides for simple access to the Directory where the
delays inherent in the above exchanges are unacceptable and where the
additional functionality provided by connection-mode operation is not
required.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Protocol Model</span>
CLDAP is based directly on LDAP [<a href="#ref-4" title=""X.500 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol"">4</a>] and inherits many of the key
aspects of the LDAP protocol:
- - Many protocol data elements are encoding as ordinary strings
(e.g., Distinguished Names).
- - A lightweight BER encoding is used to encode all protocol
elements.
It is different to LDAP in that:
- - Protocol elements are carried directly over UDP or other
connection-less transport, bypassing much of the
session/presentation overhead and that of connections (LDAP uses
a connection-mode transport service).
- - A restricted set of operations is available.
The definitions of most protocol elements are inherited from LDAP.
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.
<span class="grey">Young Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1798">RFC 1798</a> CLDAP June 1995</span>
Upon completion of the necessary operations, the server returns a
response containing any results or errors to the requesting client.
Note that, although servers are required to return responses whenever
such responses are defined in the protocol, there is no requirement
for synchronous behaviour 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 servers
eventually send a response for every request that requires one.
Also, because the protocol is implemented over a connection-less
transport service clients must be prepared for either requests or
responses to be lost. Clients should use a retry mechanism with
timeouts in order to achieve the desired level of reliability. For
example, a client might send off a request and wait for two seconds.
If no reply is forthcoming, the request is sent again and the client
waits four seconds. If there is still no reply, the client sends it
again and waits eight seconds, and so on, until some maximun time.
Such algorithms are widely used in other datagram-based protocol
implementations, such as the DNS. It is not appropriate to mandate a
specific algorithm as this will depend upon the requirments and
operational environment of individual CLDAP client implementations.
It is not required that a client abandon any requests to which no
response has been received and for which a reply is no longer
required (because the request has been timed out), but they may do
so.
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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Mapping Onto Transport Services</span>
This protocol is designed to run over connection-less 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.
<span class="grey">Young Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1798">RFC 1798</a> CLDAP June 1995</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. User Datagram Protocol (UDP)</span>
The CLDAPMessage PDUs are mapped directly onto UDP datagrams. Only
one request may be sent in a single datagram. Only one response may
be sent in a single datagram. Server implementations running over
the UDP should provide a protocol listener on port 389.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Connection-less Transport Service (CLTS)</span>
Each LDAPMessage PDU is mapped directly onto T-Unit-Data.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Elements of Protocol</span>
CLDAP messages are defined by the following ASN.1:
CLDAPMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
messageID MessageID,
user LDAPDN, -- on request only --
protocolOp CHOICE {
searchRequest SearchRequest,
searchResponse SEQUENCE OF
SearchResponse,
abandonRequest AbandonRequest
}
}
where MessageID, LDAPDN, SearchRequest, SearchResponse and
AbandonRequest are defined in the LDAP protocol.
The 'user' element is supplied only on requests (it should be zero
length and is ignored in responses). It may be used for logging
purposes but it is not required that a CLDAP server implementation
apply any particular semantics to this field.
Editorial note:
There has been some discussion about the desirability of
authentication with CLDAP requests and the addition of the fields
necessary to support this. This might take the form of a clear
text password (which would go against the current IAB drive to
remove such things from protocols) or some arbitrary credentials.
Such a field is not included. It is felt that, in general,
authentication would incur sufficient overhead to negate the
advantages of the connectionless basis of CLDAP. If an
application requires authenticated access to the Directory then
CLDAP is not an appropriate protocol.
<span class="grey">Young Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1798">RFC 1798</a> CLDAP June 1995</span>
Within a searchResponse all but the last SearchResponse has choice
'entry' and the last SearchResponse has choice 'resultCode'. Within
a searchResponse, as an encoding optimisation, the value of the
objectName LDAP DN may use a trailing '*' character to refer to the
baseObject of the corresponding searchRequest. For example, if the
baseObject is specified as "o=UofM, c=US", then the following
objectName LDAPDNs in a response would have the indicated meanings
objectName returned actual LDAPDN denoted
____________________________________________________
"*" "o=UofM, c=US"
"cn=Babs Jensen, *" "cn=Babs Jensen, o=UofM, c=US"
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Errors</span>
The following error code is added to the LDAPResult.resultCode
enumeration of [<a href="#ref-4" title=""X.500 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol"">4</a>]:
resultsTooLarge (70),
This error is returned when the LDAPMessage PDU containing the
results of an operation are too large to be sent in a single
datagram.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Example</span>
A simple lookup can be performed in 4 packets. This is reduced to 2
if either the DSA implements the CLDAP protocol, the CLDAP server has
a cache of the desired results, or the CLDAP server and DSA are co-
located such that there is insignificant delay between them.
_______________________________________________________________
|_#|___Client_____CLDAP____CLDAP_server____DAP________DSA______|
| 1| SearchReq -> |
| 2| DAP-Search.req -> |
| 3| <- DAP-Search.res|
| 4| <- SearchRes |
|__|___________________________________________________________|
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Implementation Considerations</span>
The following subsections provide guidance on the implementation of
clients and servers using the CLDAP protocol.
<span class="grey">Young Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1798">RFC 1798</a> CLDAP June 1995</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Server Implementations</span>
Given that the goal of this protocol is to minimise the elapsed time
between making a Directory request and receiving the response, a
server which uses DAP to access the directory should use techniques
that assist in this.
- - A server should remain bound to the Directory during reasonably
long idle periods or should remain bound permanently.
- - Cacheing of results is highly desirable but this must be
tempered by the need to provide up-to-date results given the
lack of a cache invalidation protocol in DAP (either implicit
via timers or explicit) and the lack of a dontUseCopy service
control in the protocol.
Of course these issues are irrelevant if the CLDAP protocol is
directly supported by a DSA.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Client Implementations</span>
For simple lookup applications, use of a retry algorithm with
multiple servers similar to that commonly used in DNS stub resolver
implementations is recommended. The location of a CLDAP server or
servers may be better specified using IP addresses (simple or
broadcast) rather than names that must first be looked up in another
directory such as DNS.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This protocol provides no facilities for authentication. It is
expected that servers will bind to the Directory either anonymously
or using simple authentication without a password.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Bibliography</span>
[<a id="ref-1">1</a>] The Directory: Overview of Concepts, Models and Service. CCITT
Recommendation X.500, 1988.
[<a id="ref-2">2</a>] The Directory: Models. CCITT Recommendation X.501 ISO/IEC JTC
1/SC21; International Standard 9594-2, 1988.
[<a id="ref-3">3</a>] The Directory: Abstract Service Definition. CCITT Recommendation
X.511, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21; International Standard 9594-3, 1988.
[<a id="ref-4">4</a>] Yeong, W., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "X.500 Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol", <a href="./rfc1487">RFC 1487</a>, Performance Systems International,
University of Michigan, ISODE Consortium, July 1993.
<span class="grey">Young Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1798">RFC 1798</a> CLDAP June 1995</span>
[<a id="ref-5">5</a>] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification", STD 13, <a href="./rfc1035">RFC 1035</a>, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, November 1987.
[<a id="ref-6">6</a>] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD
13, <a href="./rfc1034">RFC 1034</a>, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Acknowledgements</span>
Many thanks to Tim Howes and Steve Kille for their detailed comments
and to other members of the working group.
This work was initiated by the Union Bank of Switzerland.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Author's Address</span>
Alan Young
ISODE Consortium
The Dome, The Square
RICHMOND
GB - TW9 1DT
Phone: +44 81 332 9091
EMail: A.Young@isode.com
X.400: i=A; s=Young; o=ISODE Consortium; p=ISODE; a=MAILNET; c=FI
Young Standards Track [Page 9]
</pre>
|
