diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc2252.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc2252.txt | 1795 |
1 files changed, 1795 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2252.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2252.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a72b77 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2252.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1795 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group M. Wahl +Request for Comments: 2252 Critical Angle Inc. +Category: Standards Track A. Coulbeck + Isode Inc. + T. Howes + Netscape Communications Corp. + S. Kille + Isode Limited + December 1997 + + + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): + Attribute Syntax Definitions + +1. 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. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved. + +IESG Note + + This document describes a directory access protocol that provides + both read and update access. Update access requires secure + authentication, but this document does not mandate implementation of + any satisfactory authentication mechanisms. + + In accordance with RFC 2026, section 4.4.1, this specification is + being approved by IESG as a Proposed Standard despite this + limitation, for the following reasons: + + a. to encourage implementation and interoperability testing of + these protocols (with or without update access) before they + are deployed, and + + b. to encourage deployment and use of these protocols in read-only + applications. (e.g. applications where LDAPv3 is used as + a query language for directories which are updated by some + secure mechanism other than LDAP), and + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + c. to avoid delaying the advancement and deployment of other Internet + standards-track protocols which require the ability to query, but + not update, LDAPv3 directory servers. + + Readers are hereby warned that until mandatory authentication + mechanisms are standardized, clients and servers written according to + this specification which make use of update functionality are + UNLIKELY TO INTEROPERATE, or MAY INTEROPERATE ONLY IF AUTHENTICATION + IS REDUCED TO AN UNACCEPTABLY WEAK LEVEL. + + Implementors are hereby discouraged from deploying LDAPv3 clients or + servers which implement the update functionality, until a Proposed + Standard for mandatory authentication in LDAPv3 has been approved and + published as an RFC. + +2. Abstract + + The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [1] requires that + the contents of AttributeValue fields in protocol elements be octet + strings. This document defines a set of syntaxes for LDAPv3, and the + rules by which attribute values of these syntaxes are represented as + octet strings for transmission in the LDAP protocol. The syntaxes + defined in this document are referenced by this and other documents + that define attribute types. This document also defines the set of + attribute types which LDAP servers should support. + +3. Overview + + This document defines the framework for developing schemas for + directories accessible via the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. + + Schema is the collection of attribute type definitions, object class + definitions and other information which a server uses to determine + how to match a filter or attribute value assertion (in a compare + operation) against the attributes of an entry, and whether to permit + add and modify operations. + + Section 4 states the general requirements and notations for attribute + types, object classes, syntax and matching rule definitions. + + Section 5 lists attributes, section 6 syntaxes and section 7 object + classes. + + Additional documents define schemas for representing real-world + objects as directory entries. + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +4. General Issues + + This document describes encodings used in an Internet protocol. + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4]. + + Attribute Type and Object Class definitions are written in a string + representation of the AttributeTypeDescription and + ObjectClassDescription data types defined in X.501(93) [3]. + Implementors are strongly advised to first read the description of + how schema is represented in X.500 before reading the rest of this + document. + +4.1. Common Encoding Aspects + + For the purposes of defining the encoding rules for attribute + syntaxes, the following BNF definitions will be used. They are based + on the BNF styles of RFC 822 [13]. + + a = "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" / "g" / "h" / "i" / + "j" / "k" / "l" / "m" / "n" / "o" / "p" / "q" / "r" / + "s" / "t" / "u" / "v" / "w" / "x" / "y" / "z" / "A" / + "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F" / "G" / "H" / "I" / "J" / + "K" / "L" / "M" / "N" / "O" / "P" / "Q" / "R" / "S" / + "T" / "U" / "V" / "W" / "X" / "Y" / "Z" + + d = "0" / "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" / + "5" / "6" / "7" / "8" / "9" + + hex-digit = d / "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" / + "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F" + + k = a / d / "-" / ";" + + p = a / d / """ / "(" / ")" / "+" / "," / + "-" / "." / "/" / ":" / "?" / " " + + letterstring = 1*a + + numericstring = 1*d + + anhstring = 1*k + + keystring = a [ anhstring ] + + printablestring = 1*p + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + space = 1*" " + + whsp = [ space ] + + utf8 = <any sequence of octets formed from the UTF-8 [9] + transformation of a character from ISO10646 [10]> + + dstring = 1*utf8 + + qdstring = whsp "'" dstring "'" whsp + + qdstringlist = [ qdstring *( qdstring ) ] + + qdstrings = qdstring / ( whsp "(" qdstringlist ")" whsp ) + + In the following BNF for the string representation of OBJECT + IDENTIFIERs, descr is the syntactic representation of an object + descriptor, which consists of letters and digits, starting with a + letter. An OBJECT IDENTIFIER in the numericoid format should not + have leading zeroes (e.g. "0.9.3" is permitted but "0.09.3" should + not be generated). + + When encoding 'oid' elements in a value, the descr encoding option + SHOULD be used in preference to the numericoid. An object descriptor + is a more readable alias for a number OBJECT IDENTIFIER, and these + (where assigned and known by the implementation) SHOULD be used in + preference to numeric oids to the greatest extent possible. Examples + of object descriptors in LDAP are attribute type, object class and + matching rule names. + + oid = descr / numericoid + + descr = keystring + + numericoid = numericstring *( "." numericstring ) + + woid = whsp oid whsp + + ; set of oids of either form + oids = woid / ( "(" oidlist ")" ) + + oidlist = woid *( "$" woid ) + + ; object descriptors used as schema element names + qdescrs = qdescr / ( whsp "(" qdescrlist ")" whsp ) + + qdescrlist = [ qdescr *( qdescr ) ] + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + qdescr = whsp "'" descr "'" whsp + +4.2. Attribute Types + + The attribute types are described by sample values for the subschema + "attributeTypes" attribute, which is written in the + AttributeTypeDescription syntax. While lines have been folded for + readability, the values transferred in protocol would not contain + newlines. + + The AttributeTypeDescription is encoded according to the following + BNF, and the productions for oid, qdescrs and qdstring are given in + section 4.1. Implementors should note that future versions of this + document may have expanded this BNF to include additional terms. + Terms which begin with the characters "X-" are reserved for private + experiments, and MUST be followed by a <qdstrings>. + + AttributeTypeDescription = "(" whsp + numericoid whsp ; AttributeType identifier + [ "NAME" qdescrs ] ; name used in AttributeType + [ "DESC" qdstring ] ; description + [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ] + [ "SUP" woid ] ; derived from this other + ; AttributeType + [ "EQUALITY" woid ; Matching Rule name + [ "ORDERING" woid ; Matching Rule name + [ "SUBSTR" woid ] ; Matching Rule name + [ "SYNTAX" whsp noidlen whsp ] ; see section 4.3 + [ "SINGLE-VALUE" whsp ] ; default multi-valued + [ "COLLECTIVE" whsp ] ; default not collective + [ "NO-USER-MODIFICATION" whsp ]; default user modifiable + [ "USAGE" whsp AttributeUsage ]; default userApplications + whsp ")" + + AttributeUsage = + "userApplications" / + "directoryOperation" / + "distributedOperation" / ; DSA-shared + "dSAOperation" ; DSA-specific, value depends on server + + Servers are not required to provide the same or any text in the + description part of the subschema values they maintain. Servers + SHOULD provide at least one of the "SUP" and "SYNTAX" fields for each + AttributeTypeDescription. + + Servers MUST implement all the attribute types referenced in sections + 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + Servers MAY recognize additional names and attributes not listed in + this document, and if they do so, MUST publish the definitions of the + types in the attributeTypes attribute of their subschema entries. + + Schema developers MUST NOT create attribute definitions whose names + conflict with attributes defined for use with LDAP in existing + standards-track RFCs. + + An AttributeDescription can be used as the value in a NAME part of an + AttributeTypeDescription. Note that these are case insensitive. + + Note that the AttributeTypeDescription does not list the matching + rules which can can be used with that attribute type in an + extensibleMatch search filter. This is done using the + matchingRuleUse attribute described in section 4.5. + + This document refines the schema description of X.501 by requiring + that the syntax field in an AttributeTypeDescription be a string + representation of an OBJECT IDENTIFIER for the LDAP string syntax + definition, and an optional indication of the maximum length of a + value of this attribute (defined in section 4.3.2). + +4.3. Syntaxes + + This section defines general requirements for LDAP attribute value + syntax encodings. All documents defining attribute syntax encodings + for use with LDAP are expected to conform to these requirements. + + The encoding rules defined for a given attribute syntax must produce + octet strings. To the greatest extent possible, encoded octet + strings should be usable in their native encoded form for display + purposes. In particular, encoding rules for attribute syntaxes + defining non-binary values should produce strings that can be + displayed with little or no translation by clients implementing LDAP. + There are a few cases (e.g. audio) however, when it is not sensible + to produce a printable representation, and clients MUST NOT assume + that an unrecognized syntax is a string representation. + + In encodings where an arbitrary string, not a Distinguished Name, is + used as part of a larger production, and other than as part of a + Distinguished Name, a backslash quoting mechanism is used to escape + the following separator symbol character (such as "'", "$" or "#") if + it should occur in that string. The backslash is followed by a pair + of hexadecimal digits representing the next character. A backslash + itself in the string which forms part of a larger syntax is always + transmitted as '\5C' or '\5c'. An example is given in section 6.27. + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + Syntaxes are also defined for matching rules whose assertion value + syntax is different from the attribute value syntax. + +4.3.1 Binary Transfer of Values + + This encoding format is used if the binary encoding is requested by + the client for an attribute, or if the attribute syntax name is + "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5". The contents of the LDAP + AttributeValue or AssertionValue field is a BER-encoded instance of + the attribute value or a matching rule assertion value ASN.1 data + type as defined for use with X.500. (The first byte inside the OCTET + STRING wrapper is a tag octet. However, the OCTET STRING is still + encoded in primitive form.) + + All servers MUST implement this form for both generating attribute + values in search responses, and parsing attribute values in add, + compare and modify requests, if the attribute type is recognized and + the attribute syntax name is that of Binary. Clients which request + that all attributes be returned from entries MUST be prepared to + receive values in binary (e.g. userCertificate;binary), and SHOULD + NOT simply display binary or unrecognized values to users. + +4.3.2. Syntax Object Identifiers + + Syntaxes for use with LDAP are named by OBJECT IDENTIFIERs, which are + dotted-decimal strings. These are not intended to be displayed to + users. + + noidlen = numericoid [ "{" len "}" ] + + len = numericstring + + The following table lists some of the syntaxes that have been defined + for LDAP thus far. The H-R column suggests whether a value in that + syntax would likely be a human readable string. Clients and servers + need not implement all the syntaxes listed here, and MAY implement + other syntaxes. + + Other documents may define additional syntaxes. However, the + definition of additional arbitrary syntaxes is strongly deprecated + since it will hinder interoperability: today's client and server + implementations generally do not have the ability to dynamically + recognize new syntaxes. In most cases attributes will be defined + with the syntax for directory strings. + + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + Value being represented H-R OBJECT IDENTIFIER + ================================================================= + ACI Item N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.1 + Access Point Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.2 + Attribute Type Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.3 + Audio N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.4 + Binary N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5 + Bit String Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 + Boolean Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7 + Certificate N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.8 + Certificate List N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.9 + Certificate Pair N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.10 + Country String Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.11 + DN Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 + Data Quality Syntax Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.13 + Delivery Method Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.14 + Directory String Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 + DIT Content Rule Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.16 + DIT Structure Rule Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.17 + DL Submit Permission Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.18 + DSA Quality Syntax Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.19 + DSE Type Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.20 + Enhanced Guide Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.21 + Facsimile Telephone Number Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.22 + Fax N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.23 + Generalized Time Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 + Guide Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.25 + IA5 String Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 + INTEGER Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 + JPEG N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28 + LDAP Syntax Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54 + LDAP Schema Definition Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.56 + LDAP Schema Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.57 + Master And Shadow Access Points Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.29 + Matching Rule Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.30 + Matching Rule Use Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.31 + Mail Preference Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.32 + MHS OR Address Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.33 + Modify Rights Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.55 + Name And Optional UID Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34 + Name Form Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.35 + Numeric String Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36 + Object Class Description Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.37 + Octet String Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 + OID Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 + Other Mailbox Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.39 + Postal Address Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 + Protocol Information Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.42 + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + Presentation Address Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.43 + Printable String Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 + Substring Assertion Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 + Subtree Specification Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.45 + Supplier Information Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.46 + Supplier Or Consumer Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.47 + Supplier And Consumer Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.48 + Supported Algorithm N 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.49 + Telephone Number Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50 + Teletex Terminal Identifier Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.51 + Telex Number Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.52 + UTC Time Y 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.53 + + A suggested minimum upper bound on the number of characters in value + with a string-based syntax, or the number of bytes in a value for all + other syntaxes, may be indicated by appending this bound count inside + of curly braces following the syntax name's OBJECT IDENTIFIER in an + Attribute Type Description. This bound is not part of the syntax + name itself. For instance, "1.3.6.4.1.1466.0{64}" suggests that + server implementations should allow a string to be 64 characters + long, although they may allow longer strings. Note that a single + character of the Directory String syntax may be encoded in more than + one byte since UTF-8 is a variable-length encoding. + +4.3.3. Syntax Description + + The following BNF may be used to associate a short description with a + syntax OBJECT IDENTIFIER. Implementors should note that future + versions of this document may expand this definition to include + additional terms. Terms whose identifier begins with "X-" are + reserved for private experiments, and MUST be followed by a + <qdstrings>. + + SyntaxDescription = "(" whsp + numericoid whsp + [ "DESC" qdstring ] + whsp ")" + +4.4. Object Classes + + The format for representation of object classes is defined in X.501 + [3]. In general every entry will contain an abstract class ("top" or + "alias"), at least one structural object class, and zero or more + auxiliary object classes. Whether an object class is abstract, + structural or auxiliary is defined when the object class identifier + is assigned. An object class definition should not be changed + without having a new identifier assigned to it. + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + Object class descriptions are written according to the following BNF. + Implementors should note that future versions of this document may + expand this definition to include additional terms. Terms whose + identifier begins with "X-" are reserved for private experiments, and + MUST be followed by a <qdstrings> encoding. + + ObjectClassDescription = "(" whsp + numericoid whsp ; ObjectClass identifier + [ "NAME" qdescrs ] + [ "DESC" qdstring ] + [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ] + [ "SUP" oids ] ; Superior ObjectClasses + [ ( "ABSTRACT" / "STRUCTURAL" / "AUXILIARY" ) whsp ] + ; default structural + [ "MUST" oids ] ; AttributeTypes + [ "MAY" oids ] ; AttributeTypes + whsp ")" + + These are described as sample values for the subschema + "objectClasses" attribute for a server which implements the LDAP + schema. While lines have been folded for readability, the values + transferred in protocol would not contain newlines. + + Servers SHOULD implement all the object classes referenced in section + 7, except for extensibleObject, which is optional. Servers MAY + implement additional object classes not listed in this document, and + if they do so, MUST publish the definitions of the classes in the + objectClasses attribute of their subschema entries. + + Schema developers MUST NOT create object class definitions whose + names conflict with attributes defined for use with LDAP in existing + standards-track RFCs. + +4.5. Matching Rules + + Matching rules are used by servers to compare attribute values + against assertion values when performing Search and Compare + operations. They are also used to identify the value to be added or + deleted when modifying entries, and are used when comparing a + purported distinguished name with the name of an entry. + + Most of the attributes given in this document will have an equality + matching rule defined. + + Matching rule descriptions are written according to the following + BNF. Implementors should note that future versions of this document + may have expanded this BNF to include additional terms. Terms whose + identifier begins with "X-" are reserved for private experiments, and + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + MUST be followed by a <qdstrings> encoding. + + MatchingRuleDescription = "(" whsp + numericoid whsp ; MatchingRule identifier + [ "NAME" qdescrs ] + [ "DESC" qdstring ] + [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ] + "SYNTAX" numericoid + whsp ")" + + Values of the matchingRuleUse list the attributes which are suitable + for use with an extensible matching rule. + + MatchingRuleUseDescription = "(" whsp + numericoid whsp ; MatchingRule identifier + [ "NAME" qdescrs ] + [ "DESC" qdstring ] + [ "OBSOLETE" ] + "APPLIES" oids ; AttributeType identifiers + whsp ")" + + Servers which support matching rules and the extensibleMatch SHOULD + implement all the matching rules in section 8. + + Servers MAY implement additional matching rules not listed in this + document, and if they do so, MUST publish the definitions of the + matching rules in the matchingRules attribute of their subschema + entries. If the server supports the extensibleMatch, then the server + MUST publish the relationship between the matching rules and + attributes in the matchingRuleUse attribute. + + For example, a server which implements a privately-defined matching + rule for performing sound-alike matches on Directory String-valued + attributes would include the following in the subschema entry + (1.2.3.4.5 is an example, the OID of an actual matching rule would be + different): + + matchingRule: ( 1.2.3.4.5 NAME 'soundAlikeMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 ) + + If this matching rule could be used with the attributes 2.5.4.41 and + 2.5.4.15, the following would also be present: + + matchingRuleUse: ( 1.2.3.4.5 APPLIES (2.5.4.41 $ 2.5.4.15) ) + + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + A client could then make use of this matching rule by sending a + search operation in which the filter is of the extensibleMatch + choice, the matchingRule field is "soundAlikeMatch", and the type + field is "2.5.4.41" or "2.5.4.15". + +5. Attribute Types + + All LDAP server implementations MUST recognize the attribute types + defined in this section. + + Servers SHOULD also recognize all the attributes from section 5 of + [12]. + +5.1. Standard Operational Attributes + + Servers MUST maintain values of these attributes in accordance with + the definitions in X.501(93). + +5.1.1. createTimestamp + + This attribute SHOULD appear in entries which were created using the + Add operation. + + ( 2.5.18.1 NAME 'createTimestamp' EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch + ORDERING generalizedTimeOrderingMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 + SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.1.2. modifyTimestamp + + This attribute SHOULD appear in entries which have been modified + using the Modify operation. + + ( 2.5.18.2 NAME 'modifyTimestamp' EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch + ORDERING generalizedTimeOrderingMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 + SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.1.3. creatorsName + + This attribute SHOULD appear in entries which were created using the + Add operation. + + ( 2.5.18.3 NAME 'creatorsName' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 + SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION USAGE directoryOperation ) + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +5.1.4. modifiersName + + This attribute SHOULD appear in entries which have been modified + using the Modify operation. + + ( 2.5.18.4 NAME 'modifiersName' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 + SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.1.5. subschemaSubentry + + The value of this attribute is the name of a subschema entry (or + subentry if the server is based on X.500(93)) in which the server + makes available attributes specifying the schema. + + ( 2.5.18.10 NAME 'subschemaSubentry' + EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 NO-USER-MODIFICATION + SINGLE-VALUE USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.1.6. attributeTypes + + This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry. + + ( 2.5.21.5 NAME 'attributeTypes' + EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.3 USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.1.7. objectClasses + + This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry. + + ( 2.5.21.6 NAME 'objectClasses' + EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.37 USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.1.8. matchingRules + + This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry. + + ( 2.5.21.4 NAME 'matchingRules' + EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.30 USAGE directoryOperation ) + + + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +5.1.9. matchingRuleUse + + This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry. + + ( 2.5.21.8 NAME 'matchingRuleUse' + EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.31 USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.2. LDAP Operational Attributes + + These attributes are only present in the root DSE (see [1] and [3]). + + Servers MUST recognize these attribute names, but it is not required + that a server provide values for these attributes, when the attribute + corresponds to a feature which the server does not implement. + +5.2.1. namingContexts + + The values of this attribute correspond to naming contexts which this + server masters or shadows. If the server does not master any + information (e.g. it is an LDAP gateway to a public X.500 directory) + this attribute will be absent. If the server believes it contains + the entire directory, the attribute will have a single value, and + that value will be the empty string (indicating the null DN of the + root). This attribute will allow a client to choose suitable base + objects for searching when it has contacted a server. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.5 NAME 'namingContexts' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 USAGE dSAOperation ) + +5.2.2. altServer + + The values of this attribute are URLs of other servers which may be + contacted when this server becomes unavailable. If the server does + not know of any other servers which could be used this attribute will + be absent. Clients may cache this information in case their preferred + LDAP server later becomes unavailable. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.6 NAME 'altServer' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 USAGE dSAOperation ) + +5.2.3. supportedExtension + + The values of this attribute are OBJECT IDENTIFIERs identifying the + supported extended operations which the server supports. + + If the server does not support any extensions this attribute will be + absent. + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.7 NAME 'supportedExtension' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 USAGE dSAOperation ) + +5.2.4. supportedControl + + The values of this attribute are the OBJECT IDENTIFIERs identifying + controls which the server supports. If the server does not support + any controls, this attribute will be absent. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.13 NAME 'supportedControl' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 USAGE dSAOperation ) + +5.2.5. supportedSASLMechanisms + + The values of this attribute are the names of supported SASL + mechanisms which the server supports. If the server does not support + any mechanisms this attribute will be absent. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.14 NAME 'supportedSASLMechanisms' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 USAGE dSAOperation ) + +5.2.6. supportedLDAPVersion + + The values of this attribute are the versions of the LDAP protocol + which the server implements. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.15 NAME 'supportedLDAPVersion' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 USAGE dSAOperation ) + +5.3. LDAP Subschema Attribute + + This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry. + +5.3.1. ldapSyntaxes + + Servers MAY use this attribute to list the syntaxes which are + implemented. Each value corresponds to one syntax. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.16 NAME 'ldapSyntaxes' + EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54 USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.4. X.500 Subschema attributes + + These attributes are located in the subschema entry. All servers + SHOULD recognize their name, although typically only X.500 servers + will implement their functionality. + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +5.4.1. dITStructureRules + + ( 2.5.21.1 NAME 'dITStructureRules' EQUALITY integerFirstComponentMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.17 USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.4.2. nameForms + + ( 2.5.21.7 NAME 'nameForms' + EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.35 USAGE directoryOperation ) + +5.4.3. ditContentRules + + ( 2.5.21.2 NAME 'dITContentRules' + EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.16 USAGE directoryOperation ) + +6. Syntaxes + + Servers SHOULD recognize all the syntaxes described in this section. + +6.1. Attribute Type Description + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.3 DESC 'Attribute Type Description' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the BNF given at the + start of section 4.2. For example, + + ( 2.5.4.0 NAME 'objectClass' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 ) + +6.2. Binary + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5 DESC 'Binary' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded as described in section 4.3.1. + +6.3. Bit String + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 DESC 'Bit String' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF: + + bitstring = "'" *binary-digit "'B" + + binary-digit = "0" / "1" + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + Example: + + '0101111101'B + +6.4. Boolean + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7 DESC 'Boolean' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF: + + boolean = "TRUE" / "FALSE" + + Boolean values have an encoding of "TRUE" if they are logically true, + and have an encoding of "FALSE" otherwise. + +6.5. Certificate + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.8 DESC 'Certificate' ) + + Because of the changes from X.509(1988) and X.509(1993) and + additional changes to the ASN.1 definition to support certificate + extensions, no string representation is defined, and values in this + syntax MUST only be transferred using the binary encoding, by + requesting or returning the attributes with descriptions + "userCertificate;binary" or "caCertificate;binary". The BNF notation + in RFC 1778 for "User Certificate" is not recommended to be used. + +6.6. Certificate List + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.9 DESC 'Certificate List' ) + + Because of the incompatibility of the X.509(1988) and X.509(1993) + definitions of revocation lists, values in this syntax MUST only be + transferred using a binary encoding, by requesting or returning the + attributes with descriptions "certificateRevocationList;binary" or + "authorityRevocationList;binary". The BNF notation in RFC 1778 for + "Authority Revocation List" is not recommended to be used. + +6.7. Certificate Pair + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.10 DESC 'Certificate Pair' ) + + Because the Certificate is being carried in binary, values in this + syntax MUST only be transferred using a binary encoding, by + requesting or returning the attribute description + "crossCertificatePair;binary". The BNF notation in RFC 1778 for + "Certificate Pair" is not recommended to be used. + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +6.8. Country String + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.11 DESC 'Country String' ) + + A value in this syntax is encoded the same as a value of Directory + String syntax. Note that this syntax is limited to values of exactly + two printable string characters, as listed in ISO 3166 [14]. + + CountryString = p p + + Example: + US + +6.9. DN + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 DESC 'DN' ) + + Values in the Distinguished Name syntax are encoded to have the + representation defined in [5]. Note that this representation is not + reversible to an ASN.1 encoding used in X.500 for Distinguished + Names, as the CHOICE of any DirectoryString element in an RDN is no + longer known. + + Examples (from [5]): + CN=Steve Kille,O=Isode Limited,C=GB + OU=Sales+CN=J. Smith,O=Widget Inc.,C=US + CN=L. Eagle,O=Sue\, Grabbit and Runn,C=GB + CN=Before\0DAfter,O=Test,C=GB + 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=#04024869,O=Test,C=GB + SN=Lu\C4\8Di\C4\87 + +6.10. Directory String + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 DESC 'Directory String' ) + + A string in this syntax is encoded in the UTF-8 form of ISO 10646 (a + superset of Unicode). Servers and clients MUST be prepared to + receive encodings of arbitrary Unicode characters, including + characters not presently assigned to any character set. + + For characters in the PrintableString form, the value is encoded as + the string value itself. + + If it is of the TeletexString form, then the characters are + transliterated to their equivalents in UniversalString, and encoded + in UTF-8 [9]. + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + If it is of the UniversalString or BMPString forms [10], UTF-8 is + used to encode them. + + Note: the form of DirectoryString is not indicated in protocol unless + the attribute value is carried in binary. Servers which convert to + DAP MUST choose an appropriate form. Servers MUST NOT reject values + merely because they contain legal Unicode characters outside of the + range of printable ASCII. + + Example: + + This is a string of DirectoryString containing #!%#@ + +6.11. DIT Content Rule Description + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.16 DESC 'DIT Content Rule Description' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF. + Implementors should note that future versions of this document may + have expanded this BNF to include additional terms. + + + DITContentRuleDescription = "(" + numericoid ; Structural ObjectClass identifier + [ "NAME" qdescrs ] + [ "DESC" qdstring ] + [ "OBSOLETE" ] + [ "AUX" oids ] ; Auxiliary ObjectClasses + [ "MUST" oids ] ; AttributeType identifiers + [ "MAY" oids ] ; AttributeType identifiers + [ "NOT" oids ] ; AttributeType identifiers + ")" + +6.12. Facsimile Telephone Number + + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.22 DESC 'Facsimile Telephone Number' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF: + + fax-number = printablestring [ "$" faxparameters ] + + faxparameters = faxparm / ( faxparm "$" faxparameters ) + + faxparm = "twoDimensional" / "fineResolution" / + "unlimitedLength" / + "b4Length" / "a3Width" / "b4Width" / "uncompressed" + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + In the above, the first printablestring is the telephone number, + based on E.123 [15], and the faxparm tokens represent fax parameters. + +6.13. Fax + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.23 DESC 'Fax' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded as if they were octet strings + containing Group 3 Fax images as defined in [7]. + +6.14. Generalized Time + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 DESC 'Generalized Time' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded as printable strings, represented + as specified in X.208. Note that the time zone must be specified. + It is strongly recommended that GMT time be used. For example, + + 199412161032Z + +6.15. IA5 String + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 DESC 'IA5 String' ) + + The encoding of a value in this syntax is the string value itself. + +6.16. INTEGER + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 DESC 'INTEGER' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded as the decimal representation of + their values, with each decimal digit represented by the its + character equivalent. So the number 1321 is represented by the + character string "1321". + +6.17. JPEG + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28 DESC 'JPEG' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded as strings containing JPEG images + in the JPEG File Interchange Format (JFIF), as described in [8]. + +6.18. Matching Rule Description + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.30 DESC 'Matching Rule Description' ) + + Values of type matchingRules are encoded as strings according to the + BNF given in section 4.5. + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +6.19. Matching Rule Use Description + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.31 DESC 'Matching Rule Use Description' + ) + + Values of type matchingRuleUse are encoded as strings according to + the BNF given in section 4.5. + +6.20. MHS OR Address + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.33 DESC 'MHS OR Address' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded as strings, according to the format + defined in [11]. + +6.21. Name And Optional UID + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34 DESC 'Name And Optional UID' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF: + + NameAndOptionalUID = DistinguishedName [ "#" bitstring ] + + Although the '#' character may occur in a string representation of a + distinguished name, no additional special quoting is done. This + syntax has been added subsequent to RFC 1778. + + Example: + + 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=#04024869,O=Test,C=GB#'0101'B + +6.22. Name Form Description + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.35 DESC 'Name Form Description' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF. + Implementors should note that future versions of this document may + have expanded this BNF to include additional terms. + + NameFormDescription = "(" whsp + numericoid whsp ; NameForm identifier + [ "NAME" qdescrs ] + [ "DESC" qdstring ] + [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ] + "OC" woid ; Structural ObjectClass + "MUST" oids ; AttributeTypes + [ "MAY" oids ] ; AttributeTypes + whsp ")" + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +6.23. Numeric String + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36 DESC 'Numeric String' ) + + The encoding of a string in this syntax is the string value itself. + Example: + + 1997 + +6.24. Object Class Description + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.37 DESC 'Object Class Description' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the BNF in section + 4.4. + +6.25. OID + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 DESC 'OID' ) + + Values in the Object Identifier syntax are encoded according to + the BNF in section 4.1 for "oid". + + Example: + + 1.2.3.4 + cn + +6.26. Other Mailbox + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.39 DESC 'Other Mailbox' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF: + + otherMailbox = mailbox-type "$" mailbox + + mailbox-type = printablestring + + mailbox = <an encoded IA5 String> + + In the above, mailbox-type represents the type of mail system in + which the mailbox resides, for example "MCIMail"; and mailbox is the + actual mailbox in the mail system defined by mailbox-type. + +6.27. Postal Address + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 DESC 'Postal Address' ) + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF: + + postal-address = dstring *( "$" dstring ) + + In the above, each dstring component of a postal address value is + encoded as a value of type Directory String syntax. Backslashes and + dollar characters, if they occur in the component, are quoted as + described in section 4.3. Many servers limit the postal address to + six lines of up to thirty characters. + + Example: + + 1234 Main St.$Anytown, CA 12345$USA + \241,000,000 Sweepstakes$PO Box 1000000$Anytown, CA 12345$USA + +6.28. Presentation Address + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.43 DESC 'Presentation Address' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded with the representation described + in RFC 1278 [6]. + +6.29. Printable String + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 DESC 'Printable String' ) + + The encoding of a value in this syntax is the string value itself. + PrintableString is limited to the characters in production p of + section 4.1. + + Example: + + This is a PrintableString + +6.30. Telephone Number + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50 DESC 'Telephone Number' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded as if they were Printable String + types. Telephone numbers are recommended in X.520 to be in + international form, as described in E.123 [15]. + + Example: + + +1 512 305 0280 + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +6.31. UTC Time + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.53 DESC 'UTC Time' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded as if they were printable strings + with the strings containing a UTCTime value. This is historical; new + attribute definitions SHOULD use GeneralizedTime instead. + +6.32. LDAP Syntax Description + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54 DESC 'LDAP Syntax Description' ) + + Values in this syntax are encoded according to the BNF in section + 4.3.3. + +6.33. DIT Structure Rule Description + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.17 DESC 'DIT Structure Rule Description' + ) + + Values with this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF: + + DITStructureRuleDescription = "(" whsp + ruleidentifier whsp ; DITStructureRule identifier + [ "NAME" qdescrs ] + [ "DESC" qdstring ] + [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ] + "FORM" woid whsp ; NameForm + [ "SUP" ruleidentifiers whsp ] ; superior DITStructureRules + ")" + + ruleidentifier = integer + + ruleidentifiers = ruleidentifier | + "(" whsp ruleidentifierlist whsp ")" + + ruleidentifierlist = [ ruleidentifier *( ruleidentifier ) ] + +7. Object Classes + + Servers SHOULD recognize all the names of standard classes from + section 7 of [12]. + +7.1. Extensible Object Class + + The extensibleObject object class, if present in an entry, permits + that entry to optionally hold any attribute. The MAY attribute list + of this class is implicitly the set of all attributes. + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.111 NAME 'extensibleObject' + SUP top AUXILIARY ) + + The mandatory attributes of the other object classes of this entry + are still required to be present. + + Note that not all servers will implement this object class, and those + which do not will reject requests to add entries which contain this + object class, or modify an entry to add this object class. + +7.2. subschema + + This object class is used in the subschema entry. + + ( 2.5.20.1 NAME 'subschema' AUXILIARY + MAY ( dITStructureRules $ nameForms $ ditContentRules $ + objectClasses $ attributeTypes $ matchingRules $ + matchingRuleUse ) ) + + The ldapSyntaxes operational attribute may also be present in + subschema entries. + +8. Matching Rules + + Servers which implement the extensibleMatch filter SHOULD allow all + the matching rules listed in this section to be used in the + extensibleMatch. In general these servers SHOULD allow matching + rules to be used with all attribute types known to the server, when + the assertion syntax of the matching rule is the same as the value + syntax of the attribute. + + Servers MAY implement additional matching rules. + +8.1. Matching Rules used in Equality Filters + + Servers SHOULD be capable of performing the following matching rules. + + For all these rules, the assertion syntax is the same as the value + syntax. + + ( 2.5.13.0 NAME 'objectIdentifierMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 ) + + If the client supplies a filter using an objectIdentifierMatch whose + matchValue oid is in the "descr" form, and the oid is not recognized + by the server, then the filter is Undefined. + + ( 2.5.13.1 NAME 'distinguishedNameMatch' + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 ) + + ( 2.5.13.2 NAME 'caseIgnoreMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 ) + + ( 2.5.13.8 NAME 'numericStringMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36 ) + + ( 2.5.13.11 NAME 'caseIgnoreListMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 ) + + ( 2.5.13.14 NAME 'integerMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 ) + + ( 2.5.13.16 NAME 'bitStringMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 ) + + ( 2.5.13.20 NAME 'telephoneNumberMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50 ) + + ( 2.5.13.22 NAME 'presentationAddressMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.43 ) + + ( 2.5.13.23 NAME 'uniqueMemberMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34 ) + + ( 2.5.13.24 NAME 'protocolInformationMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.42 ) + + ( 2.5.13.27 NAME 'generalizedTimeMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 ) + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.1 NAME 'caseExactIA5Match' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 ) + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.2 NAME 'caseIgnoreIA5Match' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 ) + + When performing the caseIgnoreMatch, caseIgnoreListMatch, + telephoneNumberMatch, caseExactIA5Match and caseIgnoreIA5Match, + multiple adjoining whitespace characters are treated the same as an + individual space, and leading and trailing whitespace is ignored. + + Clients MUST NOT assume that servers are capable of transliteration + of Unicode values. + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +8.2. Matching Rules used in Inequality Filters + + Servers SHOULD be capable of performing the following matching rules, + which are used in greaterOrEqual and lessOrEqual filters. + + ( 2.5.13.28 NAME 'generalizedTimeOrderingMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 ) + + ( 2.5.13.3 NAME 'caseIgnoreOrderingMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 ) + + The sort ordering for a caseIgnoreOrderingMatch is implementation- + dependent. + +8.3. Syntax and Matching Rules used in Substring Filters + + The Substring Assertion syntax is used only as the syntax of + assertion values in the extensible match. It is not used as the + syntax of attributes, or in the substring filter. + + ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 DESC 'Substring Assertion' ) + + The Substring Assertion is encoded according to the following BNF: + + substring = [initial] any [final] + initial = value + any = "*" *(value "*") + final = value + + The <value> production is UTF-8 encoded string. Should the backslash + or asterix characters be present in a production of <value>, they are + quoted as described in section 4.3. + + Servers SHOULD be capable of performing the following matching rules, + which are used in substring filters. + + ( 2.5.13.4 NAME 'caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 ) + + ( 2.5.13.21 NAME 'telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 ) + + ( 2.5.13.10 NAME 'numericStringSubstringsMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 ) + + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +8.4. Matching Rules for Subschema Attributes + + Servers which allow subschema entries to be modified by clients MUST + support the following matching rules, as they are the equality + matching rules for several of the subschema attributes. + + ( 2.5.13.29 NAME 'integerFirstComponentMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 ) + + ( 2.5.13.30 NAME 'objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch' + SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 ) + + Implementors should note that the assertion syntax of these matching + rules, an INTEGER or OID, is different from the value syntax of + attributes for which this is the equality matching rule. + + If the client supplies an extensible filter using an + objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch whose matchValue is in the + "descr" form, and the OID is not recognized by the server, then the + filter is Undefined. + +9. Security Considerations + +9.1. Disclosure + + Attributes of directory entries are used to provide descriptive + information about the real-world objects they represent, which can be + people, organizations or devices. Most countries have privacy laws + regarding the publication of information about people. + +9.2. Use of Attribute Values in Security Applications + + The transformations of an AttributeValue value from its X.501 form to + an LDAP string representation are not always reversible back to the + same BER or DER form. An example of a situation which requires the + DER form of a distinguished name is the verification of an X.509 + certificate. + + For example, a distinguished name consisting of one RDN with one AVA, + in which the type is commonName and the value is of the TeletexString + choice with the letters 'Sam' would be represented in LDAP as the + string CN=Sam. Another distinguished name in which the value is + still 'Sam' but of the PrintableString choice would have the same + representation CN=Sam. + + Applications which require the reconstruction of the DER form of the + value SHOULD NOT use the string representation of attribute syntaxes + when converting a value to LDAP format. Instead it SHOULD use the + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + + Binary syntax. + +10. Acknowledgements + + This document is based substantially on RFC 1778, written by Tim + Howes, Steve Kille, Wengyik Yeong and Colin Robbins. + + Many of the attribute syntax encodings defined in this and related + documents are adapted from those used in the QUIPU and the IC R3 + X.500 implementations. The contributions of the authors of both these + implementations in the specification of syntaxes are gratefully + acknowledged. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +11. Authors' Addresses + + Mark Wahl + Critical Angle Inc. + 4815 West Braker Lane #502-385 + Austin, TX 78759 + USA + + Phone: +1 512 372-3160 + EMail: M.Wahl@critical-angle.com + + Andy Coulbeck + Isode Inc. + 9390 Research Blvd Suite 305 + Austin, TX 78759 + USA + + Phone: +1 512 231-8993 + EMail: A.Coulbeck@isode.com + + Tim Howes + Netscape Communications Corp. + 501 E. Middlefield Rd, MS MV068 + Mountain View, CA 94043 + USA + + Phone: +1 650 937-3419 + EMail: howes@netscape.com + + Steve Kille + Isode Limited + The Dome, The Square + Richmond + TW9 1DT + UK + + Phone: +44-181-332-9091 + EMail: S.Kille@isode.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +12. Bibliography + + [1] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access + Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997. + + [2] The Directory: Selected Attribute Types. ITU-T Recommendation + X.520, 1993. + + [3] The Directory: Models. ITU-T Recommendation X.501, 1993. + + [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement + Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [5] Wahl, M., Kille, S., and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access + Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of + Distinguished Names", RFC 2253, December 1997. + + [6] Kille, S., "A String Representation for Presentation Addresses", + RFC 1278, November 1991. + + [7] Terminal Equipment and Protocols for Telematic Services - + Standardization of Group 3 facsimile apparatus for document + transmission. CCITT, Recommendation T.4. + + [8] JPEG File Interchange Format (Version 1.02). Eric Hamilton, + C-Cube Microsystems, Milpitas, CA, September 1, 1992. + + [9] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO + 10646", RFC 2044, October 1996. + + [10] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) - + Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1 : + 1993 (With amendments). + + [11] Hardcastle-Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 + and RFC 822", RFC 1327, May 1992. + + [12] Wahl, M., "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use + with LDAPv3", RFC 2256, December 1997. + + [13] Crocker, D., "Standard of the Format of ARPA-Internet Text + Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982. + + [14] ISO 3166, "Codes for the representation of names of countries". + + [15] ITU-T Rec. E.123, Notation for national and international + telephone numbers, 1988. + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 2252 LADPv3 Attributes December 1997 + + +13. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wahl, et. al. Standards Track [Page 32] + |