summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
committerThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
commit4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch)
treee3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt
parentea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff)
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt339
1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8776bf9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group R. Weltman
+Request for Comments: 3829 America Online
+Category: Informational M. Smith
+ Pearl Crescent, LLC
+ M. Wahl
+ July 2004
+
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
+ Authorization Identity Request and Response Controls
+
+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 (2004).
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document extends the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP) bind operation with a mechanism for requesting and returning
+ the authorization identity it establishes. Specifically, this
+ document defines the Authorization Identity Request and Response
+ controls for use with the Bind operation.
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ This document defines support for the Authorization Identity Request
+ Control and the Authorization Identity Response Control for
+ requesting and returning the authorization established in a bind
+ operation. The Authorization Identity Request Control may be
+ submitted by a client in a bind request if authenticating with
+ version 3 of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
+ protocol [LDAPv3]. In the LDAP server's bind response, it may then
+ include an Authorization Identity Response Control. The response
+ control contains the identity assumed by the client. This is useful
+ when there is a mapping step or other indirection during the bind, so
+ that the client can be told what LDAP identity was granted. Client
+ authentication with certificates is the primary situation where this
+ applies. Also, some Simple Authentication and Security Layer [SASL]
+ authentication mechanisms may not involve the client explicitly
+ providing a DN, or may result in an authorization identity which is
+ different from the authentication identity provided by the client
+ [AUTH].
+
+
+
+
+Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
+
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
+ used in this document are to be interpreted as described in
+ [RFCKeyWords].
+
+2. Publishing support for the Authorization Identity Request Control
+ and the Authorization Identity Response Control
+
+ Support for the Authorization Identity Request Control and the
+ Authorization Identity Response Control is indicated by the presence
+ of the Object Identifiers (OIDs) 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16 and
+ 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15, respectively, in the supportedControl
+ attribute [LDAPATTRS] of a server's root DSA-specific Entry (DSE).
+
+3. Authorization Identity Request Control
+
+ This control MAY be included in any bind request which specifies
+ protocol version 3, as part of the controls field of the LDAPMessage
+ as defined in [LDAPPROT]. In a multi-step bind operation, the client
+ MUST provide the control with each bind request.
+
+ The controlType is "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16" and the controlValue is
+ absent.
+
+4. Authorization Identity Response Control
+
+ This control MAY be included in any final bind response where the
+ first bind request of the bind operation included an Authorization
+ Identity Request Control as part of the controls field of the
+ LDAPMessage as defined in [LDAPPROT].
+
+ The controlType is "2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15". If the bind request
+ succeeded and resulted in an identity (not anonymous), the
+ controlValue contains the authorization identity (authzId), as
+ defined in [AUTH] section 9, granted to the requestor. If the bind
+ request resulted in an anonymous association, the controlValue field
+ is a string of zero length. If the bind request resulted in more
+ than one authzId, the primary authzId is returned in the controlValue
+ field.
+
+ The control is only included in a bind response if the resultCode for
+ the bind operation is success.
+
+ If the server requires confidentiality protections to be in place
+ prior to use of this control (see Security Considerations), the
+ server reports failure to have adequate confidentiality protections
+ in place by returning the confidentialityRequired result code.
+
+
+
+
+
+Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
+
+
+ If the client has insufficient access rights to the requested
+ authorization information, the server reports this by returning the
+ insufficientAccessRights result code.
+
+ Identities presented by a client as part of the authentication
+ process may be mapped by the server to one or more authorization
+ identities. The bind response control can be used to retrieve the
+ primary authzId.
+
+ For example, during client authentication with certificates [AUTH], a
+ client may possess more than one certificate and may not be able to
+ determine which one was ultimately selected for authentication to the
+ server. The subject DN field in the selected certificate may not
+ correspond exactly to a DN in the directory, but rather have gone
+ through a mapping process controlled by the server. Upon completing
+ the certificate-based authentication, the client may issue a SASL
+ [SASL] bind request, specifying the EXTERNAL mechanism and including
+ an Authorization Identity Request Control. The bind response MAY
+ include an Authorization Identity Response Control indicating the DN
+ in the server's Directory Information Tree (DIT) which the
+ certificate was mapped to.
+
+5. Alternative Approach with Extended Operation
+
+ The LDAP "Who am I?" [AUTHZID] extended operation provides a
+ mechanism to query the authorization identity associated with a bound
+ connection. Using an extended operation, as opposed to a bind
+ response control, allows a client to learn the authorization identity
+ after the bind has established integrity and data confidentiality
+ protections. The disadvantages of the extended operation approach
+ are coordination issues between "Who am I?" requests, bind requests,
+ and other requests, and that an extra operation is required to learn
+ the authorization identity. For multithreaded or high bandwidth
+ server application environments, the bind response approach may be
+ preferable.
+
+6. Security Considerations
+
+ The Authorization Identity Request and Response Controls are subject
+ to standard LDAP security considerations. The controls may be passed
+ over a secure as well as over an insecure channel. They are not
+ protected by security layers negotiated by the bind operation.
+
+ The response control allows for an additional authorization identity
+ to be passed. In some deployments, these identities may contain
+ confidential information which require privacy protection. In such
+ deployments, a security layer should be established prior to issuing
+ a bind request with an Authorization Identity Request Control.
+
+
+
+Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
+
+
+7. IANA Considerations
+
+ The OIDs 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.16 and 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.15 are
+ reserved for the Authorization Identity Request and Response
+ Controls, respectively. The Authorization Identity Request Control
+ has been registered as an LDAP Protocol Mechanism [IANALDAP].
+
+8. References
+
+8.1. Normative References
+
+ [LDAPv3] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
+ September 2002.
+
+ [LDAPPROT] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight
+ Directory Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December
+ 1997.
+
+ [RFCKeyWords] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [AUTH] Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J. and R. Morgan,
+ "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000.
+
+ [SASL] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer
+ (SASL)", RFC 2222, October 1997.
+
+ [LDAPATTRS] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille,
+ "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute
+ Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.
+
+ [IANALDAP] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
+ September 2002.
+
+8.2. Informative References
+
+ [AUTHZID] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP 'Who am I?' Operation", Work in
+ Progress, April 2002.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
+
+
+9. Author's Addresses
+
+ Rob Weltman
+ America Online
+ 360 W. Caribbean Drive
+ Sunnyvale, CA 94089
+ USA
+
+ Phone: +1 650 937-3194
+ EMail: robw@worldspot.com
+
+
+ Mark Smith
+ Pearl Crescent, LLC
+ 447 Marlpool Drive
+ Saline, MI 48176
+ USA
+
+ Phone: +1 734 944-2856
+ EMail: mcs@pearlcrescent.com
+
+
+ Mark Wahl
+ PO Box 90626
+ Austin, TX 78709-0626
+ USA
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3829 Authorization Identity Bind Control July 2004
+
+
+10. Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
+ to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
+ except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
+
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+ ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
+ ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+ Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Weltman, et al. Informational [Page 6]
+