1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
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]
^L
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]
^L
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]
^L
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]
^L
|
