WDIFF

draft-rharrison-ldap-intermediate-resp-01.txt --> rfc3771.txt

INTERNET-DRAFT

Network Working Group R. Harrison
draft-rharrison-ldap-intermediate-resp-01.txt
Request for Comments: 3771 Novell, Inc.
Updates: 2251 K. Zeilenga
Intended
Category: Standards Track OpenLDAP Foundation
March 28, 2003
April 2004

The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Intermediate Response Message

Status of this Memo

This document is specifies an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and
revision, submitted to Internet standards track protocol for the RFC Editor as a Standard Track document.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical
Internet community, and requests discussion of
this document will take place on the IETF LDAP Extensions Working
Group (ldapext) mailing list <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>. and suggestions for
improvements. Please
send editorial comments directly refer to the document editor
<roger_harrison@novell.com>

Internet-Drafts are working documents current edition of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for a maximum of
six months the standardization state
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."

The list status of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list this protocol. Distribution of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) version 3 is a
client-request/server-response based protocol. With the exception
of the search operation, the entire response to an operation request
is returned in a single LDAP message. While this single-
request/single-response paradigm is sufficient for many operations
(including all but one of those currently defined by LDAP), both
intuition and practical experience validate the notion that it is
insufficient for some operations. When multiple messages are sent

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft LDAP Intermediate Response 28 March 2003

in response to a single request, all but the last of these response
messages are referred to as "intermediate responses".

This document defines and describes the IntermediateResponse message,
a general mechanism for defining single-request/multiple-
response single-request/multiple-response
operations in LDAP. Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). The
IntermediateResponse message is defined in such a way that maintains the
protocol behavior of existing LDAP operations. operations is maintained. This
message is intended to be used in conjunction with the LDAP
ExtendedRequest and ExtendedResponse to define new
single-request/multiple-response single-
request/multiple-response operations or in conjunction with a control
when extending existing LDAP operations in a way that requires them
to return intermediate response information.

Harrison & Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 3771 LDAP Intermediate Response April 2004

1. Introduction

The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), version 3 [RFC3377]
is an extensible protocol. Extended operations ([RFC2251] Section
4.12) are defined to allow for the addition of operations to be added to LDAP LDAP,
without requiring a new revision revisions of the protocol. Similarly, controls
([RFC2251] section Section 4.1.12) are defined to extend or modify the
behavior of existing LDAP operations.

LDAP is a client-request/server-response based protocol. With the
exception of the search operation, the entire response to an
operation request is returned in a single protocol data unit (i.e. (i.e.,
LDAP message). While this single-request/single-response paradigm is
sufficient for many operations (including all but one of those
currently defined by [RFC3377]), both intuition and practical
experience validate the notion that it is insufficient for some
operations. others.

For example, the LDAP delete operation could be extended via a
subtree control to mean that an entire subtree is to be deleted. A
subtree delete operation needs to return continuation references
based upon subordinate knowledge information contained in the server
so that the client can complete the operation. Returning references
as they are found found, instead of with the final result result, allows the
client to progress perform the operation more efficiently because it does not
have to wait for the final result to get this continuation reference
information.

Similarly, an engineer might choose to design the subtree delete
operation as an extended operation of its own rather than using a
subtree control in conjunction with the delete operation. Once
again, the same continuation reference information is needed by the
client to complete the operation, and sending the continuation
references as they are found would allow the client progress to perform the
operation more efficiently.

Operations that complete are completed in stages or that progress through
various states as they complete are completed might want to send intermediate
responses to the client, thereby informing it of the status of the
operation. For example, an LDAP implementation might define an
extended

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft LDAP Intermediate Response 28 March 2003 operation to create a new replica of an administrative area
on a server, and the operation completes is completed in three stages: (1)
begin creation of replica, (2) send replica data to server, (3)
replica creation complete. Intermediate messages might be sent from
the server to the client at the beginning of each stage with the
final response for the extended operation being sent after stage (3)
is complete.

Harrison & Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 3771 LDAP Intermediate Response April 2004

As LDAP [RFC3377] is currently defined, there is no general LDAP
message type that can be used to return intermediate results. A
single, reusable LDAP message for carrying intermediate response
information is desired to avoid repeated modification of the
protocol. Although the ExtendedResponse message is defined in LDAP,
it is defined to be the one and only response message to an
ExtendedRequest message ([RFC2251] Section 4.12), for unsolicited
responses (LDAP
notifications ([RFC2251] Section 4.4), and to return intermediate
responses for the search operation ([RFC3377] Section 4.5.2, also see
Section 5 below). The adaptation of ExtendedResponse as a general
intermediate response mechanism would be problematic. In particular,
existing APIs would likely have to be redesigned. It is believed
(based upon operational experience) that the addition of a new
message to carry intermediate result information is easier to
implement and is less likely to cause interoperability problems with
existing deployed implementations.

This document defines and describes the LDAP IntermediateResponse
message. This message is intended to be used in conjunction with
ExtendedRequest and ExtendedResponse to define new single-
request/multiple-response operations or in conjunction with a control
when extending existing LDAP operations in a way that requires them
to return intermediate response information.

It is intended that the definitions and descriptions of extended
operations and controls that make use of using the IntermediateResponse message will
define the circumstances when in which an IntermediateResponse message can
be sent by a server and the associated meaning of an the
IntermediateResponse message sent in a particular circumstance.
Similarly, it is intended that clients will explicitly solicit
IntermediateResponse messages by issuing operations that specifically
call for their return.

The LDAP Content Sync Operation [draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync] (a work
in progress) [ZEILENGA] demonstrates one use of
LDAP Intermediate Response messages.

2. Conventions used in this document

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 [RFC2119].

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft LDAP Intermediate Response 28 March 2003

The term "request control" is used to describe a control that is
included in an LDAP request message sent from an LDAP client to an
LDAP server.

Harrison & Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 3771 LDAP Intermediate Response April 2004

3. The IntermediateResponse Message

This document extends the protocolOp CHOICE of LDAPMessage ([RFC2251]
Section 4.1.1) to include the field:

intermediateResponse IntermediateResponse

where IntermediateResponse is defined as:

IntermediateResponse ::= [APPLICATION 25] SEQUENCE {
responseName [0] LDAPOID OPTIONAL,
responseValue [1] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

IntermediateResponse messages SHALL NOT be returned to the client
unless the client issues a request that specifically solicits their
return. This document defines two forms of solicitation: extended
operation and request control.

Although the responseName and responseValue are optional in some
circumstances, generally speaking IntermediateResponse messages usually have a
predefined responseName and a responseValue. The value of the
responseName (if present), the syntax of the responseValue (if
present) and the semantics associated with a particular
IntermediateResponse message MUST be specified in documents
describing the extended operation or request control that uses them.
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 describe additional requirements on for the
inclusion of responseName and responseValue in IntermediateResponse
messages.

3.1. Usage with LDAP ExtendedRequest and ExtendedResponse

A single-request/multiple-response operation may be defined using a
single ExtendedRequest message to solicit zero or more
IntermediateResponse messages messages, of one or more kinds kinds, followed by an
ExtendedResponse message.

An extended operation that defines the return of multiple kinds of
IntermediateResponse messages MUST provide and document a mechanism
for the client to distinguish the kind of IntermediateResponse
message being sent. This SHALL be accomplished by using different
responseName values for each type of IntermediateResponse message
associated with the extended operation or by including identifying
information in the responseValue of each type of IntermediateResponse
message associated with the extended operation.

Harrison & Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 3771 LDAP Intermediate Response April 2004

3.2. Usage with LDAP Request Controls

Any LDAP operation may be extended by the addition of one or more
controls ([RFC2251] Section 4.1.12). A control's semantics may

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft LDAP Intermediate Response 28 March 2003
include the return of zero or more IntermediateResponse messages
prior to returning the final result code for the operation. One or
more kinds of IntermediateResponse messages may be sent in response
to a request control.

All IntermediateResponse messages associated with request controls
SHALL include a responseName. This requirement ensures that the
client can correctly identify the source of IntermediateResponse
messages when

(a) when:

a) two or more controls using IntermediateResponse messages are
included in a request for any LDAP operation or

(b)

b) one or more controls using IntermediateResponse messages are
included in a request with an LDAP extended operation that uses
IntermediateResponse messages.

A request control that defines the return of multiple kinds of
IntermediateResponse messages MUST provide and document a mechanism
for the client to distinguish the kind of IntermediateResponse
message being sent. This SHALL be accomplished by using different
responseName values for each type of IntermediateResponse message
associated with the request control or by including identifying
information in the responseValue of each type of IntermediateResponse
message associated with the request control.

4. Advertising Support for IntermediateResponse Messages

Because IntermediateResponse messages are associated with extended
operations or controls and LDAP provides a means for advertising the
extended operations and controls supported by a server (using the
supportedExtensions
supportedExtension ([RFC2252] Section 5.2.3) and supportedControls supportedControl
([RFC2252] Section 5.2.4) attributes of the root DSE
attributes), DSE), there is no
need for a separate means for of advertising support for
IntermediateResponse messages is needed (or provided). intermediate
response messages.

5. Use of IntermediateResponse and ExtendedResponse with Search

It is noted that ExtendedResponse messages may be sent in response to
LDAP search operations with controls ([RFC2251] Section 4.5.1). 4.5.2). This
use of ExtendedResponse messages SHOULD be viewed as deprecated deprecated, in
favor of use of the IntermediateResponse messages.

Harrison & Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 3771 LDAP Intermediate Response April 2004

6. Security Considerations

This document describes an enhancement to LDAP. All security
considerations of [RFC3377] apply to this document, however document; however, it does
not introduce any new security considerations to LDAP.

Security considerations specific to each extension using this
protocol mechanism shall be discussed in the technical specification
detailing the extension.

7. IANA Considerations

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft LDAP Intermediate Response 28 March 2003

Registration of the following value is requested has been completed [RFC3383].

7.1. LDAP Message Type

It is requested that

The IANA register upon Standards Action has registered an LDAP Message Type (25) to identify the
LDAP IntermediateResponse message as defined in section 3 of this
document.

The following registration template is suggested:

Subject: Request for LDAP Message Type Registration
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Roger Harrison <roger_harrison@novell.com>
Specification: RFCXXXX RFC3771
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments: Identifies the LDAP IntermediateResponse Message

8. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the members of the IETF LDAP
Extensions (ldapext) working group mail list who responded to the
suggestion that a multiple-response paradigm might be useful for LDAP
extended requests. Special thanks go to two individuals: David Wilbur
who first introduced the idea on the working group list, and Thomas
Salter, who succinctly summarized the group's discussion.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.

Harrison & Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 6]

RFC 3771 LDAP Intermediate Response April 2004

[RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille,
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute
Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.

[RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
September 2002.

[RFC3383] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002.

9.2. Informative References

[draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync]

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft LDAP Intermediate Response 28 March 2003

[ZEILENGA] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP Content Synchronization Operation",
Work in
Progress. Progress, February 2004.

10. Authors' Addresses

Roger Harrison
Novell, Inc.
1800 S. Novell Place
Provo, UT 84606

Phone: +1 801 861 2642
EMail: roger_harrison@novell.com

Kurt D. Zeilenga
OpenLDAP Foundation

EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org

Harrison & Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 7]

RFC 3771 LDAP Intermediate Response April 2004

11. Full Copyright Statement

"Copyright

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. (2004). This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished is subject
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 rights, licenses and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified restrictions contained in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, BCP 78, and
except as needed for set forth therein, 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. authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein is 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 DISCLAIMS 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.

Appendix A - Document Revision History
Editors' Note: this appendix should

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be removed prior claimed to publication
as an RFC. It is provided as an aid
pertain to reviewers the implementation or use of this "work the technology described in
progress."

A.1. draft-rharrison-ldap-extPartResp-00.txt

Initial revision of draft.

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft LDAP Intermediate Response 28 March 2003

A.2. draft-rharrison-ldap-extPartResp-01.txt

Changed responseName
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be optional available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to align with [RFC3377]
definition of ExtendedResponse.

A.3. draft-rharrison-ldap-extPartResp-02.txt

Minor terminology corrections. Clarified use of
ExtendedPartialResponse with LDAP extended operations and other LDAP
operations identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with controls.

A.4. draft-rharrison-ldap-intermediateResp-00.txt

- Changed name of ExtendedPartialResponse to IntermediateResponse.

- Retitled "Motivation" section respect to "Background and Intended Usage" rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and expanded its contents.

- Added detail surrounding the use BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IntermediateResponse with
extended operations IETF Secretariat and request controls.

- Generalized the way that Intermediate response fits into the ASN.1
definition any
assurances of LDAP.

- Added information on advertising IntermediateResponse.

- Added information on licenses to be made available, or the use result of IntermediateResponse with the
search operation.

A.5. draft-rharrison-ldap-intermediateResp-01.txt

This draft was oriented primarily an
attempt made to preparing the draft obtain a general license or permission for
publication in accordance with established RFC formatting
guidelines. No substantial change in overall content was made.
Changes included the following:

- Retitled document

- Rewrote abstract

- Retitled "Background and Intended Usage" section to "Introduction"
and expanded its contents.

- Retitled Section 3 use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from "The Intermediate Response PDU" the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to "The
Intermediate Response Message".

- Renamed references bring to [RFCnnnn] format

- Added IANA Considerations section

- Retitled "References" section its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to "Normative References"

- Other small edits implement
this standard. Please address the information to bring draft in line with the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC formatting Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 Standards Track [Page 8]

Internet-Draft LDAP Intermediate Response 28 March 2003

guidelines.

Harrison & Zeilenga Expires September 28, 2003 [Page 9]

----