From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc3352.txt | 227 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 227 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3352.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3352.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3352.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3352.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1366a2e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3352.txt @@ -0,0 +1,227 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group K. Zeilenga +Request for Comments: 3352 OpenLDAP Foundation +Obsoletes: 1798 March 2003 +Category: Informational + + + Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) + to Historic Status + + +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 (2003). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + The Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) + technical specification, RFC 1798, was published in 1995 as a + Proposed Standard. This document discusses the reasons why the CLDAP + technical specification has not been furthered on the Standard Track. + This document recommends that RFC 1798 be moved to Historic status. + +1. Background + + Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) + [RFC1798] was published in 1995 as a Proposed Standard. The protocol + was targeted at applications which require lookup of small amounts of + information held in the directory. The protocol avoids the overhead + of establishing (and closing) a connection and the session bind and + unbind operations needed in connection-oriented directory access + protocols. The CLDAP was designed to complement version 2 of the + Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAPv2) [RFC1777], now + Historic [HISTORIC]. + + In the seven years since its publication, CLDAP has not become widely + deployed on the Internet. There are a number of probable reasons for + this: + + - Limited functionality: + + anonymous only, + + read only, + + small result sizes only, and + + + +Zeilenga Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 3352 CLDAP to Historic Status March 2003 + + + - Insufficient security capabilities: + + no integrity protection, + + no confidentiality protection + - Inadequate internationalization support; + - Insufficient extensibility; and + - Lack of multiple independently developed implementations. + + The CLDAP technical specification has normative references to + multiple obsolete technical specifications including X.501(88), + X.511(88), RFC 1487 (the predecessor to RFC 1777, the now Historic + LDAPv2 technical specification). Unless the technical specification + were to be updated, CLDAP cannot remain on the standards track + because of the Normative reference to a Historic RFC. + + The community recognized in the mid-1990s that CLDAP needed to be + updated. In response to this, the IETF chartered the LDAP Extensions + Working Group (LDAPext WG) in 1997 to undertake this update. The + LDAPext WG is concluding without producing an update to CLDAP. + Currently, there is no standardization effort to update CLDAP. + + It should be noted that the community still has interest in + developing a "connection-less" directory access protocol. However, + based on operational experience, has determined that further + experimentation is necessary to address outstanding technical issues. + In particular, security considerations associated with + "connection-less" services need to be addressed. + +2. Recommendation + + As there is no viable standardization effort to update CLDAP as + necessary to keep it on the standards track and the community + currently considers this an area requiring further experimentation, + RFC 1798 must be moved to Historic status. + + It is recommended that those interested in connection-less access to + X.500-based directory services experiment with [LDAPUDP] and other + alternatives which might become available. + +3. Security Considerations + + The security of the Internet will not be impacted by the retirement + of CLDAP. + +4. Acknowledgment + + The author would like to thank the designers of CLDAP for their + contribution to the Internet community. + + + + +Zeilenga Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 3352 CLDAP to Historic Status March 2003 + + +5. Normative References + + [HISTORIC] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol + version 2 (LDAPv2) to Historic Status", RFC 3494, February + 2003. + + [CLDAP] Young, A. "Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access + Protocol," RFC 1798, June 1995. + +6. Informative References + + [LDAPUDP] Johansson, L. and R. Hedberg, "Lightweight Directory + Access Protocol over UDP/IP," Work in Progress. + + [RFC1777] Yeong, W., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory + Access Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995. + + [RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access + Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, + September 2002. + + [X501] The Directory: Models. CCITT Recommendation X.501 ISO/IEC + JTC 1/SC21; International Standard 9594-2, 1988. + + [X511] The Directory: Abstract Service Definition. CCITT + Recommendation X.511, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21; International + Standard 9594-3, 1988. + +7. Author's Address + + Kurt D. Zeilenga + OpenLDAP Foundation + + EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zeilenga Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 3352 CLDAP to Historic Status March 2003 + + +8. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zeilenga Informational [Page 4] + -- cgit v1.2.3