diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc2696.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc2696.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc2696.txt | 395 |
1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2696.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2696.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4ccc4c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2696.txt @@ -0,0 +1,395 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group C. Weider +Request for Comments: 2696 A. Herron +Category: Informational A. Anantha + Microsoft + T. Howes + Netscape + September 1999 + + + LDAP Control Extension for Simple Paged Results Manipulation + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. + +1. Abstract + + This document describes an LDAPv3 control extension for simple paging + of search results. This control extension allows a client to control + the rate at which an LDAP server returns the results of an LDAP + search operation. This control may be useful when the LDAP client has + limited resources and may not be able to process the entire result + set from a given LDAP query, or when the LDAP client is connected + over a low-bandwidth connection. Other operations on the result set + are not defined in this extension. This extension is not designed to + provide more sophisticated result set management. + + The key words "MUST", "SHOULD", and "MAY" used in this document are + to be interpreted as described in [bradner97]. + +2. The Control + + This control is included in the searchRequest and searchResultDone + messages as part of the controls field of the LDAPMessage, as defined + in Section 4.1.12 of [LDAPv3]. The structure of this control is as + follows: + + + + + + + + + +Weider, et al. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 2696 LDAP Control Ext. for Simple Paged Results September 1999 + + +pagedResultsControl ::= SEQUENCE { + controlType 1.2.840.113556.1.4.319, + criticality BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE, + controlValue searchControlValue +} + +The searchControlValue is an OCTET STRING wrapping the BER-encoded +version of the following SEQUENCE: + +realSearchControlValue ::= SEQUENCE { + size INTEGER (0..maxInt), + -- requested page size from client + -- result set size estimate from server + cookie OCTET STRING +} + +3. Client-Server Interaction + + An LDAP client application that needs to control the rate at which + results are returned MAY specify on the searchRequest a + pagedResultsControl with size set to the desired page size and cookie + set to the zero-length string. The page size specified MAY be greater + than zero and less than the sizeLimit value specified in the + searchRequest. + + If the page size is greater than or equal to the sizeLimit value, the + server should ignore the control as the request can be satisfied in a + single page. If the server does not support this control, the server + MUST return an error of unsupportedCriticalExtension if the client + requested it as critical, otherwise the server SHOULD ignore the + control. The remainder of this section assumes the server does not + ignore the client's pagedResultsControl. + + Each time the server returns a set of results to the client when + processing a search request containing the pagedResultsControl, the + server includes the pagedResultsControl control in the + searchResultDone message. In the control returned to the client, the + size MAY be set to the server's estimate of the total number of + entries in the entire result set. Servers that cannot provide such an + estimate MAY set this size to zero (0). The cookie MUST be set to an + empty value if there are no more entries to return (i.e., the page of + search results returned was the last), or, if there are more entries + to return, to an octet string of the server's choosing,used to resume + the search. + + The client MUST consider the cookie to be an opaque structure and + make no assumptions about its internal organization or value. When + the client wants to retrieve more entries for the result set, it MUST + + + +Weider, et al. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 2696 LDAP Control Ext. for Simple Paged Results September 1999 + + + send to the server a searchRequest with all values identical to the + initial request with the exception of the messageID, the cookie, and + optionally a modified pageSize. The cookie MUST be the octet string + on the last searchResultDone response returned by the server. + Returning cookies from previous searchResultDone responses besides + the last one is undefined, as the server implementation may restrict + cookies from being reused. + + The server will then return the next set of results from the whole + result set. This interaction will continue until the client has + retrieved all the results, in which case the cookie in the + searchResultDone field will be empty, or until the client abandons + the search sequence as described below. Once the paged search + sequence has been completed, the cookie is no longer valid and MUST + NOT be used. + + A sequence of paged search requests is abandoned by the client + sending a search request containing a pagedResultsControl with the + size set to zero (0) and the cookie set to the last cookie returned + by the server. A client MAY use the LDAP Abandon operation to + abandon one paged search request in progress, but this is discouraged + as it MAY invalidate the client's cookie. + + If, for any reason, the server cannot resume a paged search operation + for a client, then it SHOULD return the appropriate error in a + searchResultDone entry. If this occurs, both client and server should + assume the paged result set is closed and no longer resumable. + + A client may have any number of outstanding search requests pending, + any of which may have used the pagedResultsControl. A server + implementation which requires a limit on the number of outstanding + paged search requests from a given client MAY either return + unwillingToPerform when the client attempts to create a new paged + search request, or age out an older result set. If the server + implementation ages out an older paged search request, it SHOULD + return "unwilling to perform" if the client attempts to resume the + paged search that was aged out. + + A client may safely assume that all entries that satisfy a given + search query are returned once and only once during the set of paged + search requests/responses necessary to enumerate the entire result + set, unless the result set for that query has changed since the + searchRequest starting the request/response sequence was processed. + In that case, the client may receive a given entry multiple times + and/or may not receive all entries matching the given search + criteria. + + + + + +Weider, et al. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 2696 LDAP Control Ext. for Simple Paged Results September 1999 + + +4. Example + + The following example illustrates the client-server interaction + between a client doing a search requesting a page size limit of 3. + The entire result set returned by the server contains 5 entries. + + Lines beginning with "C:" indicate requests sent from client to + server. Lines beginning with "S:" indicate responses sent from server + to client. Lines beginning with "--" are comments to help explain the + example. + + -- Client sends a search request asking for paged results + -- with a page size of 3. + C: SearchRequest + pagedResultsControl(3,"") + -- Server responds with three entries plus an indication + -- of 5 total entries in the search result and an opaque + -- cooking to be used by the client when retrieving subsequent + -- pages. + S: SearchResultEntry + S: SearchResultEntry + S: SearchResultEntry + S: SearchResultDone + pagedResultsControl(5, "opaque") + -- Client sends an identical search request (except for + -- message id), returning the opaque cooking, asking for + -- the next page. + C: SearchRequest + PagedResultsControl(3, "opaque") + -- Server responds with two entries plus an indication + -- that there are no more entries (null cookie). + S: SearchResultEntry + S: SearchResultEntry + S: SearchResultDone + pagedResultsControl(5,"") + +5. Relationship to X.500 + + For LDAP servers providing a front end to X.500 (93) directories, the + paged results control defined in this document may be mapped directly + onto the X.500 (93) PagedResultsRequest defined in X.511 [x500]. The + size parameter may be mapped onto pageSize. The cookie parameter may + be mapped onto queryReference. The sortKeys and reverse fields in + the X.500 PagedResultsRequest are excluded. + + + + + + + + + + + +Weider, et al. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 2696 LDAP Control Ext. for Simple Paged Results September 1999 + + +6. Security Considerations + + Server implementors should consider the resources used when clients + send searches with the simple paged control, to ensure that a + client's misuse of this control does not lock out other legitimate + operations. + + Servers implementations may enforce an overriding sizelimit, to + prevent the retrieval of large portions of a publically-accessible + directory. + + Clients can, using this control, determine how many entries match a + particular filter, before the entries are returned to the client. + This may require special processing in servers which perform access + control checks on entries to determine whether the existence of the + entry can be disclosed to the client. + +7. References + + [LDAPv3] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory + Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. + + [Bradner97] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Weider, et al. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 2696 LDAP Control Ext. for Simple Paged Results September 1999 + + +8. Authors' Addresses + + Chris Weider + Microsoft Corp. + 1 Microsoft Way + Redmond, WA 98052 + USA + + Phone: +1 425 882-8080 + EMail: cweider@microsoft.com + + + Andy Herron + Microsoft Corp. + 1 Microsoft Way + Redmond, WA 98052 + USA + + Phone: +1 425 882-8080 + EMail: andyhe@microsoft.com + + + Anoop Anantha + Microsoft Corp. + 1 Microsoft Way + Redmond, WA 98052 + USA + + Phone: +1 425 882-8080 + EMail: anoopa@microsoft.com + + + Tim Howes + Netscape Communications Corp. + 501 E. Middlefield Road + Mountain View, CA 94043 + USA + + Phone: +1 415 937-2600 + EMail: howes@netscape.com + + + + + + + + + + + +Weider, et al. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 2696 LDAP Control Ext. for Simple Paged Results September 1999 + + +9. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Weider, et al. Informational [Page 7] + |