upstream/openldap
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap.git synced 2026-02-18 10:07:56 -05:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Update VLV I-D and add proxy auth I-D.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Kurt Zeilenga 2002-06-07 01:44:32 +00:00
parent 3304d125c4
commit 536fafdb39
2 changed files with 704 additions and 341 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

694
doc/drafts/draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-vlv-xx.txt
View file

@ -1,15 +1,12 @@
INTERNET-DRAFT D. Boreham, Bozeman Pass
LDAPext Working Group J. Sermersheim, Novell
Category: Standards Track A. Anantha, Microsoft
<draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-vlv-05.txt> M. Armijo, Microsoft
Expires: May 2002 A. Kashi, Microsoft
November 2001
Internet-Draft D. Boreham, Bozeman Pass
LDAPext Working Group J. Sermersheim, Novell
Intended Category: Standards Track A. Kashi, Microsoft
<draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-vlv-06.txt>
Expires: Nov 2002 May 2002
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View Browsing of Search Results
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View Browsing of Search Results
1. Status of this Memo
@ -18,14 +15,13 @@
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
@ -33,160 +29,156 @@
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This document is intended to be submitted, after review and
revision, as a Standards Track document. Distribution of this memo
is unlimited. It is filed as <draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-vlv-
05.txt>, and expires May, 2002.
This document is intended to be submitted, after review and revision,
as a Standards Track document. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.
Please send comments to the authors.
2. Abstract
This document describes a Virtual List View control extension for
the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Search operation.
This control is designed to allow the "virtual list box" feature,
common in existing commercial e-mail address book applications, to
be supported efficiently by LDAP servers. LDAP servers' inability to
This document describes a Virtual List View control extension for the
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Search operation. This
control is designed to allow the "virtual list box" feature, common
in existing commercial e-mail address book applications, to be
supported efficiently by LDAP servers. LDAP servers' inability to
support this client feature is a significant impediment to LDAP
replacing proprietary protocols in commercial e-mail systems.
Boreham et al Standards Track 1
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Browsing of Search Results
The control allows a client to specify that the server return, for a
given LDAP search with associated sort keys, a contiguous subset of
the search result set. This subset is specified in terms of offsets
into the ordered list, or in terms of a greater than or equal
comparison value.
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 1
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
3. Conventions used in this document
The key words ``MUST'', ``MUST NOT'', ``REQUIRED'', ``SHALL'',
``SHALL NOT'', ``SHOULD'', ``SHOULD NOT'', ``RECOMMENDED'', and
``MAY'' in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [Bradner97].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are
to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [Bradner97].
4. Background
A Virtual List is a graphical user interface technique employed
where ordered lists containing a large number of entries need to be
displayed. A window containing a small number of visible list
entries is drawn. The visible portion of the list may be relocated
to different points within the list by means of user input. This
input can be to a scroll bar slider; from cursor keys; from page
up/down keys; from alphanumeric keys for "typedown". The user is
given the impression that they may browse the complete list at will,
even though it may contain millions of entries. It is the fact that
the complete list contents are never required at any one time that
characterizes Virtual List View. Rather than fetch the complete
list from wherever it is stored (typically from disk or a remote
server), only that information which is required to display the part
of the list currently in view is fetched. The subject of this
document is the interaction between client and server required to
implement this functionality in the context of the results from a
sorted LDAP search request.
A Virtual List is a graphical user interface technique employed where
ordered lists containing a large number of entries need to be
displayed. A window containing a small number of visible list entries
is drawn. The visible portion of the list may be relocated to
different points within the list by means of user input. This input
can be to a scroll bar slider; from cursor keys; from page up/down
keys; from alphanumeric keys for "typedown". The user is given the
impression that they may browse the complete list at will, even
though it may contain millions of entries. It is the fact that the
complete list contents are never required at any one time that
characterizes Virtual List View. Rather than fetch the complete list
from wherever it is stored (typically from disk or a remote server),
only that information which is required to display the part of the
list currently in view is fetched. The subject of this document is
the interaction between client and server required to implement this
functionality in the context of the results from a sorted LDAP search
request.
For example, suppose an e-mail address book application displays a
list view onto the list containing the names of all the holders of
e-mail accounts at a large university. The list is sorted
alphabetically. While there may be tens of thousands of entries in
list view onto the list containing the names of all the holders of e-
mail accounts at a large university. The list is sorted
alphabetically. While there may be tens of thousands of entries in
this list, the address book list view displays only 20 such accounts
at any one time. The list has an accompanying scroll bar and text
input window for type-down. When first displayed, the list view
shows the first 20 entries in the list, and the scroll bar slider is
positioned at the top of its range. Should the user drag the slider
at any one time. The list has an accompanying scroll bar and text
input window for type-down. When first displayed, the list view shows
the first 20 entries in the list, and the scroll bar slider is
positioned at the top of its range. Should the user drag the slider
to the bottom of its range, the displayed contents of the list view
should be updated to show the last 20 entries in the list.
Similarly, if the slider is positioned somewhere in the middle of
its travel, the displayed contents of the list view should be
updated to contain the 20 entries located at that relative position
within the complete list. Starting from any display point, if the
user uses the cursor keys or clicks on the scroll bar to request
that the list be scrolled up or down by one entry, the displayed
contents should be updated to reflect this. Similarly the list
should be displayed correctly when the user requests a page scroll
should be updated to show the last 20 entries in the list. Similarly,
if the slider is positioned somewhere in the middle of its travel,
the displayed contents of the list view should be updated to contain
the 20 entries located at that relative position within the complete
list. Starting from any display point, if the user uses the cursor
keys or clicks on the scroll bar to request that the list be scrolled
up or down by one entry, the displayed contents should be updated to
reflect this. Similarly the list should be displayed correctly when
the user requests a page scroll up or down. Finally, when the user
types characters in the type-down window, the displayed contents of
the list should "jump" or "seek" to the appropriate point within the
list. For example, if the user types "B", the displayed list could
center around the first user with a name beginning with the letter
"B". When this happens, the scroll bar slider should also be updated
to reflect the new relative location within the list.
Boreham et al Standards Track 2
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 2
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
up or down. Finally, when the user types characters in the type-
down window, the displayed contents of the list should "jump" or
"seek" to the appropriate point within the list. For example, if
the user types "B", the displayed list could center around the first
user with a name beginning with the letter "B". When this happens,
the scroll bar slider should also be updated to reflect the new
relative location within the list.
This document defines a request control which extends the LDAP
search operation. Always used in conjunction with the server side
sorting control [SSS], this allows a client to retrieve selected
portions of large search result set in a fashion suitable for the
implementation of a virtual list view.
This document defines a request control which extends the LDAP search
operation. Always used in conjunction with the server side sorting
control [SSS], this allows a client to retrieve selected portions of
large search result set in a fashion suitable for the implementation
of a virtual list view.
5. Client-Server Interaction
The Virtual List View control extends a regular LDAP Search
operation which must also include a server-side sorting control
[SSS]. Rather than returning the complete set of appropriate
SearchResultEntry messages, the server is instructed to return a
contiguous subset of those entries, taken from the sorted result
set, centered around a particular target entry. Henceforth, in the
interests of brevity, the sorted search result set will be referred
to as "the list".
The Virtual List View control extends a regular LDAP Search operation
which must also include a server-side sorting control [SSS]. Rather
than returning the complete set of appropriate SearchResultEntry
messages, the server is instructed to return a contiguous subset of
those entries, taken from the sorted result set, centered around a
particular target entry. Henceforth, in the interests of brevity, the
sorted search result set will be referred to as "the list".
The sort control MAY contain any sort specification valid for the
server. The attributeType field in the first SortKeyList sequence
server. The attributeType field in the first SortKeyList sequence
element has special significance for "typedown".
The desired target entry and the number of entries to be returned,
both before and after that target entry in the list, are determined
by the client's VirtualListViewRequest control.
When the server returns the set of entries to the client, it
attaches a VirtualListViewResponse control to the SearchResultDone
message. The server returns in this control: its current estimate
for the list content count, the location within the list
corresponding to the target entry, and any error codes.
When the server returns the set of entries to the client, it attaches
a VirtualListViewResponse control to the SearchResultDone message.
The server returns in this control: its current estimate for the list
content count, the location within the list corresponding to the
target entry, any error codes, and optionally a context identifier.
The target entry is specified in the VirtualListViewRequest control
by one of two methods. The first method is for the client to
indicate the target entry's offset within the list. The second way
is for the client to supply an attribute assertion value. The value
is compared against the values of the attribute specified as the
primary sort key in the sort control attached to the search
operation. The first sort key in the SortKeyList is the primary
sort key. The target entry is the first entry in the list with
value greater than or equal to (in the primary sort order), the
presented value. The order is determined by rules defined in [SSS].
Selection of the target entry by this means is designed to implement
"typedown". Note that it is possible that no entry satisfies these
by one of two methods. The first method is for the client to indicate
the target entry's offset within the list. The second way is for the
client to supply an attribute assertion value. The value is compared
against the values of the attribute specified as the primary sort key
in the sort control attached to the search operation. The first sort
key in the SortKeyList is the primary sort key. The target entry is
the first entry in the list with value greater than or equal to (in
the primary sort order), the presented value. The order is determined
by rules defined in [SSS]. Selection of the target entry by this
means is designed to implement "typedown". Note that it is possible
that no entry satisfies these conditions, in which case there is no
target entry. This condition is indicated by the server returning the
special value contentCount + 1 in the target position field.
Boreham et al Standards Track 3
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Because the server may not have an accurate estimate of the number of
entries in the list, and to take account of cases where the list size
is changing during the time the user browses the list, and because
the client needs a way to indicate specific list targets "beginning"
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 3
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
conditions, in which case there is no target entry. This condition
is indicated by the server returning the special value contentCount
+ 1 in the target position field.
Because the server may not have an accurate estimate of the number
of entries in the list, and to take account of cases where the list
size is changing during the time the user browses the list, and
because the client needs a way to indicate specific list
targets "beginning" and "end", offsets within the list are
transmitted between client and server as ratios---offset to
content count. The server sends its latest estimate as to the number
of entries in the list (content count) to the client in every
response control. The client sends its assumed value for the
content count in every request control. The server examines the
content count and offsets presented by the client and computes the
corresponding offsets within the list, based on its own idea of the
content count.
and "end", offsets within the list are transmitted between client and
server as ratios---offset to content count. The server sends its
latest estimate as to the number of entries in the list (content
count) to the client in every response control. The client sends its
assumed value for the content count in every request control. The
server examines the content count and offsets presented by the client
and computes the corresponding offsets within the list, based on its
own idea of the content count.
Si = Sc * (Ci / Cc)
@ -201,39 +193,41 @@
the content count most recently received, Cc = Sc and the offsets
transmitted become the actual server list offsets.
The following special cases are allowed: a client sending a
content count of zero (Cc = 0) means "client has no idea what the
content count is, server MUST use its own content count estimate
in place of the client's". An offset value of one (Ci = 1)
always means that the target is the first entry in the list. Client
specifying an offset which equals the content count specified in the
same request control (Ci = Cc) means that the target is the last
entry in the list. Ci may only equal zero when Cc is also zero.
This signifies the last entry in the list.
The following special cases exist when the client is specifying the
offset and content count:
- an offset of one and a content count of non-one (Ci = 1, Cc != 1)
indicates that the target is the first entry in the list.
- equivalent values (Ci = Cc) indicate that the target is the last
entry in the list.
- a content count of zero, and a non-zero offset (Cc = 0, Ci != 0)
means the client has no idea what the content count is, the server
MUST use its own content count estimate in place of the client's.
Because the server always returns contentCount and targetPosition,
the client can always determine which of the returned entries is the
target entry. Where the number of entries returned is the same as
the number requested, the client is able to identify the target by
simple arithmetic. Where the number of entries returned is not the
same as the number requested (because the requested range crosses
the beginning or end of the list, or both), the client must use the
target entry. Where the number of entries returned is the same as the
number requested, the client is able to identify the target by simple
arithmetic. Where the number of entries returned is not the same as
the number requested (because the requested range crosses the
beginning or end of the list, or both), the client must use the
target position and content count values returned by the server to
identify the target entry. For example, suppose that 10 entries
before and 10 after the target were requested, but the server
returns 13 entries, a content count of 100 and a target position of
identify the target entry. For example, suppose that 10 entries
before and 10 after the target were requested, but the server returns
13 entries, a content count of 100 and a target position of 3. The
client can determine that the first entry must be entry number 1 in
the list, therefore the 13 entries returned are the first 13 entries
in the list, and the target is the third one.
Boreham et al Standards Track 4
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
A server-generated context identifier MAY be returned to clients. A
client receiving a context identifier SHOULD return it unchanged in a
subsequent request which relates to the same list. The purpose of
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 4
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
3. The client can determine that the first entry must be entry
number 1 in the list, therefore the 13 entries returned are the
first 13 entries in the list, and the target is the third one.
A server-generated context identifier MAY be returned to clients. A
client receiving a context identifier SHOULD return it unchanged in
a subsequent request which relates to the same list. The purpose of
this interaction is to enhance the performance and effectiveness of
servers which employ approximate positioning.
@ -248,119 +242,131 @@
This control is included in the SearchRequest message as part of the
controls field of the LDAPMessage, as defined in Section 4.1.12 of
[LDAPv3]. The controlType is set to "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.9". The
criticality SHOULD be set to TRUE. If this control is included in a
[LDAPv3]. The controlType is set to "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.9". The
criticality SHOULD be set to TRUE. If this control is included in a
SearchRequest message, a Server Side Sorting request control [SSS]
MUST also be present in the message. The controlValue is an OCTET
STRING whose value is the BER-encoding of the following SEQUENCE:
VirtualListViewRequest ::= SEQUENCE {
beforeCount INTEGER (0..maxInt),
afterCount INTEGER (0..maxInt),
CHOICE {
byoffset [0] SEQUENCE {
offset INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
contentCount INTEGER (0 .. maxInt) },
greaterThanOrEqual [1] AssertionValue },
contextID OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
VirtualListViewRequest ::= SEQUENCE {
beforeCount INTEGER (0..maxInt),
afterCount INTEGER (0..maxInt),
CHOICE {
byoffset [0] SEQUENCE {
offset INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
contentCount INTEGER (0 .. maxInt) },
greaterThanOrEqual [1] AssertionValue },
contextID OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
beforeCount indicates how many entries before the target entry the
client wants the server to send. afterCount indicates the number of
entries after the target entry the client wants the server to send.
client wants the server to send. afterCount indicates the number of
entries after the target entry the client wants the server to send.
offset and contentCount identify the target entry as detailed in
section 4. greaterThanOrEqual is an attribute assertion value
defined in [LDAPv3]. If present, the value supplied in
greaterThanOrEqual is used to determine the target entry by
comparison with the values of the attribute specified as the primary
sort key. The first list entry who's value is no less than (less
than or equal to when the sort order is reversed) the supplied value
is the target entry. If present, the contextID field contains the
value of the most recently received contextID field from a
VirtualListViewResponse control. The type AssertionValue and value
maxInt are defined in [LDAPv3]. contextID values have no validity
outwith the connection on which they were received. That is, a
Boreham et al Standards Track 5
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Browsing of Search Results
client should not submit a contextID which it received from another
connection, a connection now closed, or a different server.
section 4. greaterThanOrEqual is an attribute assertion value defined
in [LDAPv3]. If present, the value supplied in greaterThanOrEqual is
used to determine the target entry by comparison with the values of
the attribute specified as the primary sort key. The first list entry
who's value is no less than (less than or equal to when the sort
order is reversed) the supplied value is the target entry. If
present, the contextID field contains the value of the most recently
received contextID field from a VirtualListViewResponse control. The
type AssertionValue and value maxInt are defined in [LDAPv3].
contextID values have no validity outwith the connection on which
they were received. That is, a client should not submit a contextID
which it received from another connection, a connection now closed,
or a different server.
6.2. Response Control
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 5
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
This control is included in the SearchResultDone message as part of
the controls field of the LDAPMessage, as defined in Section 4.1.12
of [LDAPv3].
The controlType is set to "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.10". The
criticality is FALSE (MAY be absent). The controlValue is an OCTET
STRING, whose value is the BER encoding of a value of the following
SEQUENCE:
The controlType is set to "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.10". The criticality
is FALSE (MAY be absent). The controlValue is an OCTET STRING, whose
value is the BER encoding of a value of the following SEQUENCE:
VirtualListViewResponse ::= SEQUENCE {
targetPosition INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
contentCount INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
virtualListViewResult ENUMERATED {
success (0),
operationsError (1),
unwillingToPerform (53),
insufficientAccessRights (50),
busy (51),
timeLimitExceeded (3),
adminLimitExceeded (11),
sortControlMissing (60),
offsetRangeError (61),
other (80) },
contextID OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
VirtualListViewResponse ::= SEQUENCE {
targetPosition INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
contentCount INTEGER (0 .. maxInt),
virtualListViewResult ENUMERATED {
success (0),
operationsError (1),
unwillingToPerform (53),
insufficientAccessRights (50),
busy (51),
timeLimitExceeded (3),
adminLimitExceeded (11),
sortControlMissing (60),
offsetRangeError (61),
other (80) },
contextID OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }
targetPosition gives the list offset for the target entry.
targetPosition gives the list offset for the target entry.
contentCount gives the server's estimate of the current number of
entries in the list. Together these give sufficient information for
entries in the list. Together these give sufficient information for
the client to update a list box slider position to match the newly
retrieved entries and identify the target entry. The contentCount
value returned SHOULD be used in a subsequent VirtualListViewRequest
control. contextID is a server-defined octet string. If present,
the contents of the contextID field SHOULD be returned to the server
by a client in a subsequent VirtualListViewRequest control.
control. contextID is a server-defined octet string. If present, the
contents of the contextID field SHOULD be returned to the server by a
client in a subsequent VirtualListViewRequest control.
The virtualListViewResult codes which are common to the LDAP
The virtualListViewResult codes which are common to the LDAP
searchResponse (adminLimitExceeded, timeLimitExceeded, busy,
operationsError, unwillingToPerform, insufficientAccessRights) have
the same meanings as defined in [LDAPv3], but they pertain
specifically to the VLV operation. For example, the server could
specifically to the VLV operation. For example, the server could
exceed an administration limit processing a SearchRequest with a
VirtualListViewRequest control. However, the same administration
limit would not be exceeded should the same SearchRequest be
submitted by the client without the VirtualListViewRequest control.
submitted by the client without the VirtualListViewRequest control.
In this case, the client can determine that an administration limit
has been exceeded in servicing the VLV request, and can if it
Boreham et al Standards Track 6
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Browsing of Search Results
chooses resubmit the SearchRequest without the
VirtualListViewRequest control.
has been exceeded in servicing the VLV request, and can if it chooses
resubmit the SearchRequest without the VirtualListViewRequest
control.
insufficientAccessRights means that the server denied the client
permission to perform the VLV operation.
If the server determines that the results of the search presented
exceed the range provided by the 32-bit offset values, it MUST
return offsetRangeError.
If the server returns any code other then success (0) for
virtualListViewResult, then the server MUST return controlError (76)
as the resultCode of the SearchResultDone message. [ctrlErr]
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 6
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
If the server determines that the results of the search presented
exceed the range specified in INTEGER values, it MUST return
offsetRangeError.
6.2.1 virtualListViewError
A new LDAP error is introduced called virtualListViewError. Its value
is 76.
[Note to the IESG/IANA/RFC Editor: the value 76 has been suggested by
experts, had expert review, and is currently being used by some
implementations. The intent is to have this number designated as an
official IANA assigned LDAP Result Code (see draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-
xx.txt, Section 3.5)]
If the server returns any code other than success (0) for
virtualListViewResult, then the server SHOULD return
virtualListViewError as the resultCode of the SearchResultDone
message.
7. Protocol Example
Here we walk through the client-server interaction for a specific
virtual list view example: The task is to display a list of all
78564 people in the US company "Ace Industry". This will be done by
virtual list view example: The task is to display a list of all 78564
people in the US company "Ace Industry". This will be done by
creating a graphical user interface object to display the list
contents, and by repeatedly sending different versions of the same
virtual list view search request to the server. The list view
@ -369,62 +375,63 @@
We form a search with baseDN "o=Ace Industry, c=us"; search scope
subtree; filter "objectClass=inetOrgPerson". We attach a server sort
order control to the search, specifying ascending sort on attribute
"cn". To this base search, we attach a virtual list view request
"cn". To this base search, we attach a virtual list view request
control with contents determined by the user activity and send the
search to the server. We display the results from each search in
the list window and update the slider position.
search to the server. We display the results from each search in the
list window and update the slider position.
When the list view is first displayed, we want to initialize the
contents showing the beginning of the list. Therefore, we set
beforeCount = 0, afterCount = 19, contentCount = 0, offset = 1 and
send the request to the server. The server duly returns the first
20 entries in the list, plus the content count = 78564 and
targetPosition = 1. We therefore leave the scroll bar slider at its
send the request to the server. The server duly returns the first 20
entries in the list, plus the content count = 78564 and
targetPosition = 1. We therefore leave the scroll bar slider at its
current location (the top of its range).
Say that next the user drags the scroll bar slider down to the
bottom of its range. We now wish to display the last 20 entries in
the list, so we set beforeCount = 19, afterCount = 0, contentCount =
78564, offset = 78564 and send the request to the server. The server
returns the last 20 entries in the list, plus the content count =
78564 and targetPosition = 78564.
Say that next the user drags the scroll bar slider down to the bottom
of its range. We now wish to display the last 20 entries in the list,
so we set beforeCount = 19, afterCount = 0, contentCount = 78564,
offset = 78564 and send the request to the server. The server returns
Next the user presses a page up key. Our page size is 20, so we
set beforeCount = 0, afterCount = 19, contentCount = 78564,
offset = 78564-19-20 and send the request to the server. The server
Boreham et al Standards Track 7
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 7
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
returns the preceding 20 entries in the list, plus the content count
= 78564 and targetPosition = 78525.
the last 20 entries in the list, plus the content count = 78564 and
targetPosition = 78564.
Next the user presses a page up key. Our page size is 20, so we set
beforeCount = 0, afterCount = 19, contentCount = 78564, offset =
78564-19-20 and send the request to the server. The server returns
the preceding 20 entries in the list, plus the content count = 78564
and targetPosition = 78525.
Now the user grabs the scroll bar slider and drags it to 68% of the
way down its travel. 68% of 78564 is 53424 so we set beforeCount =
9, afterCount = 10, contentCount = 78564, offset = 53424 and send
the request to the server. The server returns the preceding 20
entries in the list, plus the content count = 78564 and
targetPosition = 53424.
way down its travel. 68% of 78564 is 53424 so we set beforeCount = 9,
afterCount = 10, contentCount = 78564, offset = 53424 and send the
request to the server. The server returns the preceding 20 entries in
the list, plus the content count = 78564 and targetPosition = 53424.
Lastly, the user types the letter "B". We set beforeCount = 9,
afterCount = 10 and greaterThanOrEqual = "B". The server finds the
first entry in the list not less than "B", let's say "Babs Jensen",
and returns the nine preceding entries, the target entry, and the
proceeding 10 entries. The server returns content count = 78564 and
targetPosition = 5234 and so the client updates its scroll bar
slider to 6.7% of full scale.
proceeding 10 entries. The server returns content count = 78564 and
targetPosition = 5234 and so the client updates its scroll bar slider
to 6.7% of full scale.
8. Notes for Implementers
While the feature is expected to be generally useful for arbitrary
search and sort specifications, it is specifically designed for
those cases where the result set is very large. The intention is
that this feature be implemented efficiently by means of pre-
computed indices pertaining to a set of specific cases. For
example, an offset relating to "all the employees in the local
organization, sorted by surname" would be a common case.
search and sort specifications, it is specifically designed for those
cases where the result set is very large. The intention is that this
feature be implemented efficiently by means of pre-computed indices
pertaining to a set of specific cases. For example, an offset
relating to "all the employees in the local organization, sorted by
surname" would be a common case.
The intention for client software is that the feature should fit
easily with the host platform's graphical user interface facilities
@ -433,39 +440,40 @@
information received from the list view code to match the format of
the virtual list view request and response controls.
Client implementers should note that any offset value returned by
the server may be approximate. Do not design clients > which only
operate correctly when offsets are exact.
Client implementers should note that any offset value returned by the
server may be approximate. Do not design clients > which only operate
correctly when offsets are exact.
Server implementers using indexing technology which features
approximate positioning should consider returning context
identifiers to clients. The use of a context identifier will allow
the server to distinguish between client requests which relate to
different displayed lists on the client. Consequently the server can
decide more intelligently whether to reposition an existing database
cursor accurately to within a short distance of its current
position, or to reposition to an approximate position. Thus the
client will see precise offsets for "short" repositioning (e.g.
paging up or down), but approximate offsets for a "long" reposition
(e.g. a slider movement).
approximate positioning should consider returning context identifiers
to clients. The use of a context identifier will allow the server to
distinguish between client requests which relate to different
displayed lists on the client. Consequently the server can decide
more intelligently whether to reposition an existing database cursor
Boreham et al Standards Track 8
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 8
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
Server implementers are free to return status code
unwillingToPerform should their server be unable to service any
particular VLV search. This might be because the resolution of the
search is computationally infeasible, or because excessive server
resources would be required to service the search.
accurately to within a short distance of its current position, or to
reposition to an approximate position. Thus the client will see
precise offsets for "short" repositioning (e.g. paging up or down),
but approximate offsets for a "long" reposition (e.g. a slider
movement).
Server implementers are free to return status code unwillingToPerform
should their server be unable to service any particular VLV search.
This might be because the resolution of the search is computationally
infeasible, or because excessive server resources would be required
to service the search.
Client implementers should note that this control is only defined on
a client interaction with a single server. If a server returns
referrals as a part of its response to the search request, the
client is responsible for deciding when and how to apply this
control to the referred-to servers, and how to collate the results
from multiple servers.
referrals as a part of its response to the search request, the client
is responsible for deciding when and how to apply this control to the
referred-to servers, and how to collate the results from multiple
servers.
9. Relationship to "Simple Paged Results"
@ -475,10 +483,10 @@
[SPaged]. However, the controls described here support any operation
possible with the Simple Paged Results mechanism. The two mechanisms
are not complementary; rather one has a superset of the other's
features. One area where the mechanism presented here is not a
strict superset of the Simple Paged Results scheme is that here we
require a sort order to be specified. No such requirement is made
for paged results.
features. One area where the mechanism presented here is not a strict
superset of the Simple Paged Results scheme is that here we require a
sort order to be specified. No such requirement is made for paged
results.
10. Security Considerations
@ -497,25 +505,28 @@
undesirable in some circumstances and consequently it may be
necessary to enforce some access control.
Clients can, using this control, determine how many entries are
contained within a portion of the DIT. This may constitute a
security hazard. Again, access controls may be appropriate.
Server implementers SHOULD exercise caution concerning the content
of the contextID. Should the contextID contain internal server
state, it may be possible for a malicious client to use that
information to gain unauthorized access to information.
Boreham et al Standards Track 9
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 9
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
Clients can, using this control, determine how many entries are
contained within a portion of the DIT. This may constitute a security
hazard. Again, access controls may be appropriate.
Server implementers SHOULD exercise caution concerning the content of
the contextID. Should the contextID contain internal server state, it
may be possible for a malicious client to use that information to
gain unauthorized access to information.
11. Acknowledgements
Chris Weider of Microsoft co-authored a previous version of this
document.
Chris Weider, Anoop Anantha, and Michael Armijo of Microsoft co-
authored previous versions of this document.
12. References
@ -526,8 +537,8 @@
December, 1997.
[SPaged] Weider, C., Herron, A., Anantha, A. and T. Howes, "LDAP
Control Extension for Simple Paged Results
Manipulation", RFC2696, September 1999.
Control Extension for Simple Paged Results Manipulation",
RFC2696, September 1999.
[SSS] Wahl, M., Herron, A. and T. Howes, "LDAP Control
Extension for Server Side Sorting of Search Results",
@ -535,12 +546,29 @@
[Bradner97] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ctrlErr] Armijo, M. and A. Kashi, ôResult Code for LDAP
Controlsö, Internet-Draft, September, 2001.
Work in progress published as:
<draft-armijo-ldap-control-error-02.txt>
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 10
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View May 2002
Browsing of Search Results
13. Authors' Addresses
@ -550,30 +578,11 @@
david@bozemanpass.com
Jim Sermersheim
Novell
122 East 1700 South
Novell, Inc
1800 South Novell Place
Provo, Utah 84606, USA
jimse@novell.com
Anoop Anantha
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052, USA
+1 425 882-8080
anoopa@microsoft.com
Michael Armijo
Boreham et al Standards Track 10
LDAP Extensions for Scrolling View November 2001
Browsing of Search Results
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052, USA
+1 425 882-8080
micharm@microsoft.com
Asaf Kashi
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
@ -584,30 +593,33 @@
14. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). 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
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
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."
Boreham et al Standards Track 11
Boreham et al Internet-Draft 11

351
doc/drafts/draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-xx.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,351 @@
INTERNET-DRAFT Rob Weltman
Intended Category: Standards Track Netscape Communications Corp.
May 2002
LDAP Proxied Authorization Control
draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-11.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Task Force
(IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document defines the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) Proxied Authorization Control. The Proxied Authorization
Control allows a client to request that an operation be processed
under a provided authorization identity [AUTH] instead of as the
current authorization identity associated with the connection.
1. Introduction
This document defines support for proxied authorization using the
Control mechanism. LDAP [LDAPV3] supports the use of SASL [SASL] for
authentication and for supplying an authorization identity distinct
from the authentication identity, where the authorization identity
applies to the whole LDAP session. The proposed Proxied Authorization
Control provides a mechanism for specifying an authorization identity
on a per operation basis, benefiting clients that need to efficiently
perform operations on behalf of multiple users.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY", and
"MAY NOT" used in this document are to be interpreted as described
in [KEYWORDS].
Expires November 2002 [Page 1]
PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL May 2002
2. Publishing support for the Proxied Authorization Control
Support for the Proxied Authorization Control is indicated by the
presence of the OID "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18" in the
supportedControl attribute of a server's root DSE.
3. Proxied Authorization Control
A single Proxied Authorization Control may be included in any search,
compare, modify, add, delete, modDN or extended operation request
message (with the exception of any extension that causes a change in
authentication, authorization, or data confidentiality [RFC 2828],
such as startTLS) as part of the controls field of the LDAPMessage,
as defined in [LDAPV3].
The controlType of the proxied authorization control is
"2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.18".
The criticality MUST be present and MUST be TRUE. This requirement
protects clients from submitting a request that is executed with an
unintended authorization identity.
The controlValue is either an LDAPString [LDAPv3] containing an
authzId as defined in section 9 of [AUTH] to use as the authorization
identity for the request, or an empty value if the anonymous identity
is to be used.
The mechanism for determining proxy access rights is specific to the
server's access control policy.
If the requested authorization identity is recognized by the server,
and the client is authorized to adopt the requested authorization
identity, the request will be executed as if submitted by the proxied
authorization identity, otherwise the result code TBD is returned.
[Note to the IESG/IANA/RFC Editor: the value TBD is to be replaced
with an IANA assigned LDAP Result Code (see draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-
xx.txt, Section 3.5)]
4. Implementation Considerations
The interaction of proxied authorization access control and normal
access control is illustrated here for the case of search requests.
During evaluation of a search request, an entry which would have been
returned for the search if submitted by the proxied authorization
identity directly may not be returned if the server finds that the
requester does not have the right to assume the requested identity
for searching the entry, even if the entry is within the scope of a
search request under a base DN which does imply such rights. This
means that fewer results, or no results, may be returned compared to
the case where the proxied authorization identity issued the request
directly. An example of such a case may be a system with fine-grained
Expires November 2002 [Page 2]
PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL May 2002
access control, where the proxy right requester has proxy rights at
the top of a search tree, but not at or below a point or points
within the tree.
5. Security Considerations
The Proxied Authorization Control method is subject to general LDAP
security considerations [LDAPV3] [AUTH] [LDAPTLS]. The control may be
passed over a secure as well as over an insecure channel.
The control allows for an additional authorization identity to be
passed. In some deployments, these identities may contain
confidential information which require privacy protection.
Note that the server is responsible for determining if a proxied
authorization request is to be honored. "Anonymous" users SHOULD NOT
be allowed to assume the identity of others.
6. Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). 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.
7. References
[LDAPV3] M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
Expires November 2002 [Page 3]
PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL May 2002
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, Scott, "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", draft-bradner-key-words-03.txt, January,
1997.
[SASL] J. Myers, "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)",
RFC 2222, October 1997
[AUTH] M. Wahl, H. Alvestrand, J. Hodges, R. Morgan, "Authentication
Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000
[LDAPTLS] J. Hodges, R. Morgan, M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security",
RFC 2830, May 2000
[RFC 2828] R. Shirey, "Internet Security Glossary", RFC 2828, May
2000
8. Author's Address
Rob Weltman
Netscape Communications Corp.
466 Ellis Street
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
+1 650 937-3194
rweltman@netscape.com
9. Acknowledgements
Mark Smith of Netscape Communications Corp., Mark Wahl of Sun
Microsystems, Inc, Kurt Zeilenga of OpenLDAP Foundation, Jim
Sermersheim of Novell, and Steven Legg of Adacel have contributed
with reviews of this draft.
10. Revision History
10.1 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-10.txt
Clarified the interaction of proxy access rights and normal access
control evaluation.
10.2 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-09.txt
Removed description of Control mechanism from Abstract.
Added description of how this is different from SASL authz to the
Introduction.
Expires November 2002 [Page 4]
PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL May 2002
Reworded description of the value of the control (no semantic
changes).
Added new result code TBD for failure to acquire proxy rights.
Added references to RFCs 2829 and 2830 in Security section.
10.3 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-08.txt
Proxied Authorization Control
Clarifications: the control may not be submitted with a startTLS
request; an empty controlValue implies the anonymous identity; only
one control may be included with a request.
Permission to execute as proxy
Replaced "proxy identity" with "proxied authorization identity".
Security Considerations
Added statement that anonymous users should not be allowed to assume
the identity of others.
10.4 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-07.txt
Proxied Authorization Control
Clarification: the content of the control is an LDAPString.
10.5 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-06.txt
None
Expires November 2002 [Page 5]
PROXIED AUTHORIZATION CONTROL May 2002
10.6 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-05.txt
The control also applies to add and extended operations.
The control value is an authorization ID, not necessarily a DN.
Confidentiality concerns are mentioned.
10.7 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-04.txt
The control does not apply to bind, unbind, or abandon operations.
The proxy DN is represented as a string in the control, rather than
embedded in a sequence.
Support for the control is published in the supportedControl
attribute of the root DSE, not in supportedExtensions.
The security section mentions confidentiality issues with exposing an
additional identity.
10.8 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-03.txt
None
10.9 Changes from draft-weltman-ldapv3-proxy-02.txt
The Control is now called Proxied Authorization Control, rather than
Proxied Authentication Control, to reflect that no authentication
occurs as a consequence of processing the Control.
Rather than containing an LDAPDN as the Control value, the Control
contains a Sequence (which contains an LDAPDN). This is to provide
for future extensions.
Expires November 2002 [Page 6]