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/rfc3829.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3829.txt | 339 |
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] + |