You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@directory.apache.org by fe...@apache.org on 2007/11/05 16:17:15 UTC
svn commit: r592038 [11/22] - in
/directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help: ./ META-INF/ src/
src/main/ src/main/docbook/ src/main/resources/
src/main/resources/about_files/ src/main/resources/html/
src/main/resources/html/css/ src/main/resourc...
Added: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2254.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2254.txt?rev=592038&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2254.txt (added)
+++ directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2254.txt Mon Nov 5 07:16:53 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group T. Howes
+Request for Comments: 2254 Netscape Communications Corp.
+Category: Standards Track December 1997
+
+
+ The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
+
+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
+
+ 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997
+
+
+ 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] defines a
+ network representation of a search filter transmitted to an LDAP
+ server. Some applications may find it useful to have a common way of
+ representing these search filters in a human-readable form. This
+ document defines a human-readable string format for representing LDAP
+ search filters.
+
+ This document replaces RFC 1960, extending the string LDAP filter
+ definition to include support for LDAP version 3 extended match
+ filters, and including support for representing the full range of
+ possible LDAP search filters.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997
+
+
+3. LDAP Search Filter Definition
+
+ An LDAPv3 search filter is defined in Section 4.5.1 of [1] as
+ follows:
+
+ Filter ::= CHOICE {
+ and [0] SET OF Filter,
+ or [1] SET OF Filter,
+ not [2] Filter,
+ equalityMatch [3] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ substrings [4] SubstringFilter,
+ greaterOrEqual [5] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ lessOrEqual [6] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ present [7] AttributeDescription,
+ approxMatch [8] AttributeValueAssertion,
+ extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion
+ }
+
+ SubstringFilter ::= SEQUENCE {
+ type AttributeDescription,
+ SEQUENCE OF CHOICE {
+ initial [0] LDAPString,
+ any [1] LDAPString,
+ final [2] LDAPString
+ }
+ }
+
+ AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
+ attributeDesc AttributeDescription,
+ attributeValue AttributeValue
+ }
+
+ MatchingRuleAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
+ matchingRule [1] MatchingRuleID OPTIONAL,
+ type [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,
+ matchValue [3] AssertionValue,
+ dnAttributes [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE
+ }
+
+ AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString
+
+ AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING
+
+ MatchingRuleID ::= LDAPString
+
+ AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING
+
+ LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING
+
+
+
+Howes Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997
+
+
+ where the LDAPString above is limited to the UTF-8 encoding of the
+ ISO 10646 character set [4]. The AttributeDescription is a string
+ representation of the attribute description and is defined in [1].
+ The AttributeValue and AssertionValue OCTET STRING have the form
+ defined in [2]. The Filter is encoded for transmission over a
+ network using the Basic Encoding Rules defined in [3], with
+ simplifications described in [1].
+
+4. String Search Filter Definition
+
+ The string representation of an LDAP search filter is defined by the
+ following grammar, following the ABNF notation defined in [5]. The
+ filter format uses a prefix notation.
+
+ filter = "(" filtercomp ")"
+ filtercomp = and / or / not / item
+ and = "&" filterlist
+ or = "|" filterlist
+ not = "!" filter
+ filterlist = 1*filter
+ item = simple / present / substring / extensible
+ simple = attr filtertype value
+ filtertype = equal / approx / greater / less
+ equal = "="
+ approx = "~="
+ greater = ">="
+ less = "<="
+ extensible = attr [":dn"] [":" matchingrule] ":=" value
+ / [":dn"] ":" matchingrule ":=" value
+ present = attr "=*"
+ substring = attr "=" [initial] any [final]
+ initial = value
+ any = "*" *(value "*")
+ final = value
+ attr = AttributeDescription from Section 4.1.5 of [1]
+ matchingrule = MatchingRuleId from Section 4.1.9 of [1]
+ value = AttributeValue from Section 4.1.6 of [1]
+
+ The attr, matchingrule, and value constructs are as described in the
+ corresponding section of [1] given above.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997
+
+
+ If a value should contain any of the following characters
+
+ Character ASCII value
+ ---------------------------
+ * 0x2a
+ ( 0x28
+ ) 0x29
+ \ 0x5c
+ NUL 0x00
+
+ the character must be encoded as the backslash '\' character (ASCII
+ 0x5c) followed by the two hexadecimal digits representing the ASCII
+ value of the encoded character. The case of the two hexadecimal
+ digits is not significant.
+
+ This simple escaping mechanism eliminates filter-parsing ambiguities
+ and allows any filter that can be represented in LDAP to be
+ represented as a NUL-terminated string. Other characters besides the
+ ones listed above may be escaped using this mechanism, for example,
+ non-printing characters.
+
+ For example, the filter checking whether the "cn" attribute contained
+ a value with the character "*" anywhere in it would be represented as
+ "(cn=*\2a*)".
+
+ Note that although both the substring and present productions in the
+ grammar above can produce the "attr=*" construct, this construct is
+ used only to denote a presence filter.
+
+5. Examples
+
+ This section gives a few examples of search filters written using
+ this notation.
+
+ (cn=Babs Jensen)
+ (!(cn=Tim Howes))
+ (&(objectClass=Person)(|(sn=Jensen)(cn=Babs J*)))
+ (o=univ*of*mich*)
+
+ The following examples illustrate the use of extensible matching.
+
+ (cn:1.2.3.4.5:=Fred Flintstone)
+ (sn:dn:2.4.6.8.10:=Barney Rubble)
+ (o:dn:=Ace Industry)
+ (:dn:2.4.6.8.10:=Dino)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997
+
+
+ The second example illustrates the use of the ":dn" notation to
+ indicate that matching rule "2.4.6.8.10" should be used when making
+ comparisons, and that the attributes of an entry's distinguished name
+ should be considered part of the entry when evaluating the match.
+
+ The third example denotes an equality match, except that DN
+ components should be considered part of the entry when doing the
+ match.
+
+ The fourth example is a filter that should be applied to any
+ attribute supporting the matching rule given (since the attr has been
+ left off). Attributes supporting the matching rule contained in the
+ DN should also be considered.
+
+ The following examples illustrate the use of the escaping mechanism.
+
+ (o=Parens R Us \28for all your parenthetical needs\29)
+ (cn=*\2A*)
+ (filename=C:\5cMyFile)
+ (bin=\00\00\00\04)
+ (sn=Lu\c4\8di\c4\87)
+
+ The first example shows the use of the escaping mechanism to
+ represent parenthesis characters. The second shows how to represent a
+ "*" in a value, preventing it from being interpreted as a substring
+ indicator. The third illustrates the escaping of the backslash
+ character.
+
+ The fourth example shows a filter searching for the four-byte value
+ 0x00000004, illustrating the use of the escaping mechanism to
+ represent arbitrary data, including NUL characters.
+
+ The final example illustrates the use of the escaping mechanism to
+ represent various non-ASCII UTF-8 characters.
+
+6. Security Considerations
+
+ This memo describes a string representation of LDAP search filters.
+ While the representation itself has no known security implications,
+ LDAP search filters do. They are interpreted by LDAP servers to
+ select entries from which data is retrieved. LDAP servers should
+ take care to protect the data they maintain from unauthorized access.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997
+
+
+7. References
+
+ [1] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
+
+ [2] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight
+ Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC
+ 2252, December 1997.
+
+ [3] Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic, Canonical, and
+ Distinguished Encoding Rules, ITU-T Recommendation X.690, 1994.
+
+ [4] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO
+ 10646", RFC 2044, October 1996.
+
+ [5] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
+ Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
+
+8. Author's Address
+
+ Tim Howes
+ Netscape Communications Corp.
+ 501 E. Middlefield Road
+ Mountain View, CA 94043
+ USA
+
+ Phone: +1 415 937-3419
+ EMail: howes@netscape.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997
+
+
+9. 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes Standards Track [Page 8]
+
Propchange: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2254.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
svn:eol-style = native
Added: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2255.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2255.txt?rev=592038&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2255.txt (added)
+++ directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2255.txt Mon Nov 5 07:16:53 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group T. Howes
+Request for Comments: 2255 M. Smith
+Category: Standards Track Netscape Communications Corp.
+ December 1997
+
+
+ The LDAP URL Format
+
+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
+
+ 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+ 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
+
+ LDAP is the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, defined in [1],
+ [2] and [3]. This document describes a format for an LDAP Uniform
+ Resource Locator. The format describes an LDAP search operation to
+ perform to retrieve information from an LDAP directory. This document
+ replaces RFC 1959. It updates the LDAP URL format for version 3 of
+ LDAP and clarifies how LDAP URLs are resolved. This document also
+ defines an extension mechanism for LDAP URLs, so that future
+ documents can extend their functionality, for example, to provide
+ access to new LDAPv3 extensions as they are defined.
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MAY", and "SHOULD" used in this document are
+ to be interpreted as described in [6].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+3. URL Definition
+
+ An LDAP URL begins with the protocol prefix "ldap" and is defined by
+ the following grammar.
+
+ ldapurl = scheme "://" [hostport] ["/"
+ [dn ["?" [attributes] ["?" [scope]
+ ["?" [filter] ["?" extensions]]]]]]
+ scheme = "ldap"
+ attributes = attrdesc *("," attrdesc)
+ scope = "base" / "one" / "sub"
+ dn = distinguishedName from Section 3 of [1]
+ hostport = hostport from Section 5 of RFC 1738 [5]
+ attrdesc = AttributeDescription from Section 4.1.5 of [2]
+ filter = filter from Section 4 of [4]
+ extensions = extension *("," extension)
+ extension = ["!"] extype ["=" exvalue]
+ extype = token / xtoken
+ exvalue = LDAPString from section 4.1.2 of [2]
+ token = oid from section 4.1 of [3]
+ xtoken = ("X-" / "x-") token
+
+ The "ldap" prefix indicates an entry or entries residing in the LDAP
+ server running on the given hostname at the given portnumber. The
+ default LDAP port is TCP port 389. If no hostport is given, the
+ client must have some apriori knowledge of an appropriate LDAP server
+ to contact.
+
+ The dn is an LDAP Distinguished Name using the string format
+ described in [1]. It identifies the base object of the LDAP search.
+
+ ldapurl = scheme "://" [hostport] ["/"
+ [dn ["?" [attributes] ["?" [scope]
+ ["?" [filter] ["?" extensions]]]]]]
+ scheme = "ldap"
+ attributes = attrdesc *("," attrdesc)
+ scope = "base" / "one" / "sub"
+ dn = distinguishedName from Section 3 of [1]
+ hostport = hostport from Section 5 of RFC 1738 [5]
+ attrdesc = AttributeDescription from Section 4.1.5 of [2]
+ filter = filter from Section 4 of [4]
+ extensions = extension *("," extension)
+ extension = ["!"] extype ["=" exvalue]
+ extype = token / xtoken
+ exvalue = LDAPString from section 4.1.2 of [2]
+ token = oid from section 4.1 of [3]
+ xtoken = ("X-" / "x-") token
+
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+ The "ldap" prefix indicates an entry or entries residing in the LDAP
+ server running on the given hostname at the given portnumber. The
+ default LDAP port is TCP port 389. If no hostport is given, the
+ client must have some apriori knowledge of an appropriate LDAP server
+ to contact.
+
+ The dn is an LDAP Distinguished Name using the string format
+ described in [1]. It identifies the base object of the LDAP search.
+
+ The attributes construct is used to indicate which attributes should
+ be returned from the entry or entries. Individual attrdesc names are
+ as defined for AttributeDescription in [2]. If the attributes part
+ is omitted, all user attributes of the entry or entries should be
+ requested (e.g., by setting the attributes field
+ AttributeDescriptionList in the LDAP search request to a NULL list,
+ or (in LDAPv3) by requesting the special attribute name "*").
+
+ The scope construct is used to specify the scope of the search to
+ perform in the given LDAP server. The allowable scopes are "base"
+ for a base object search, "one" for a one-level search, or "sub" for
+ a subtree search. If scope is omitted, a scope of "base" is assumed.
+
+ The filter is used to specify the search filter to apply to entries
+ within the specified scope during the search. It has the format
+ specified in [4]. If filter is omitted, a filter of
+ "(objectClass=*)" is assumed.
+
+ The extensions construct provides the LDAP URL with an extensibility
+ mechanism, allowing the capabilities of the URL to be extended in the
+ future. Extensions are a simple comma-separated list of type=value
+ pairs, where the =value portion MAY be omitted for options not
+ requiring it. Each type=value pair is a separate extension. These
+ LDAP URL extensions are not necessarily related to any of the LDAPv3
+ extension mechanisms. Extensions may be supported or unsupported by
+ the client resolving the URL. An extension prefixed with a '!'
+ character (ASCII 33) is critical. An extension not prefixed with a '
+ !' character is non-critical.
+
+ If an extension is supported by the client, the client MUST obey the
+ extension if the extension is critical. The client SHOULD obey
+ supported extensions that are non-critical.
+
+ If an extension is unsupported by the client, the client MUST NOT
+ process the URL if the extension is critical. If an unsupported
+ extension is non-critical, the client MUST ignore the extension.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+ If a critical extension cannot be processed successfully by the
+ client, the client MUST NOT process the URL. If a non-critical
+ extension cannot be processed successfully by the client, the client
+ SHOULD ignore the extension.
+
+ Extension types prefixed by "X-" or "x-" are reserved for use in
+ bilateral agreements between communicating parties. Other extension
+ types MUST be defined in this document, or in other standards-track
+ documents.
+
+ One LDAP URL extension is defined in this document in the next
+ section. Other documents or a future version of this document MAY
+ define other extensions.
+
+ Note that any URL-illegal characters (e.g., spaces), URL special
+ characters (as defined in section 2.2 of RFC 1738) and the reserved
+ character '?' (ASCII 63) occurring inside a dn, filter, or other
+ element of an LDAP URL MUST be escaped using the % method described
+ in RFC 1738 [5]. If a comma character ',' occurs inside an extension
+ value, the character MUST also be escaped using the % method.
+
+4. The Bindname Extension
+
+ This section defines an LDAP URL extension for representing the
+ distinguished name for a client to use when authenticating to an LDAP
+ directory during resolution of an LDAP URL. Clients MAY implement
+ this extension.
+
+ The extension type is "bindname". The extension value is the
+ distinguished name of the directory entry to authenticate as, in the
+ same form as described for dn in the grammar above. The dn may be the
+ NULL string to specify unauthenticated access. The extension may be
+ either critical (prefixed with a '!' character) or non-critical (not
+ prefixed with a '!' character).
+
+ If the bindname extension is critical, the client resolving the URL
+ MUST authenticate to the directory using the given distinguished name
+ and an appropriate authentication method. Note that for a NULL
+ distinguished name, no bind MAY be required to obtain anonymous
+ access to the directory. If the extension is non-critical, the client
+ MAY bind to the directory using the given distinguished name.
+
+5. URL Processing
+
+ This section describes how an LDAP URL SHOULD be resolved by a
+ client.
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+ First, the client obtains a connection to the LDAP server referenced
+ in the URL, or an LDAP server of the client's choice if no LDAP
+ server is explicitly referenced. This connection MAY be opened
+ specifically for the purpose of resolving the URL or the client MAY
+ reuse an already open connection. The connection MAY provide
+ confidentiality, integrity, or other services, e.g., using TLS. Use
+ of security services is at the client's discretion if not specified
+ in the URL.
+
+ Next, the client authenticates itself to the LDAP server. This step
+ is optional, unless the URL contains a critical bindname extension
+ with a non-NULL value. If a bindname extension is given, the client
+ proceeds according to the section above.
+
+ If a bindname extension is not specified, the client MAY bind to the
+ directory using a appropriate dn and authentication method of its own
+ choosing (including NULL authentication).
+
+ Next, the client performs the LDAP search operation specified in the
+ URL. Additional fields in the LDAP protocol search request, such as
+ sizelimit, timelimit, deref, and anything else not specified or
+ defaulted in the URL specification, MAY be set at the client's
+ discretion.
+
+ Once the search has completed, the client MAY close the connection to
+ the LDAP server, or the client MAY keep the connection open for
+ future use.
+
+6. Examples
+
+ The following are some example LDAP URLs using the format defined
+ above. The first example is an LDAP URL referring to the University
+ of Michigan entry, available from an LDAP server of the client's
+ choosing:
+
+ ldap:///o=University%20of%20Michigan,c=US
+
+ The next example is an LDAP URL referring to the University of
+ Michigan entry in a particular ldap server:
+
+ ldap://ldap.itd.umich.edu/o=University%20of%20Michigan,c=US
+
+ Both of these URLs correspond to a base object search of the
+ "o=University of Michigan, c=US" entry using a filter of
+ "(objectclass=*)", requesting all attributes.
+
+ The next example is an LDAP URL referring to only the postalAddress
+ attribute of the University of Michigan entry:
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+ ldap://ldap.itd.umich.edu/o=University%20of%20Michigan,
+ c=US?postalAddress
+
+ The corresponding LDAP search operation is the same as in the
+ previous example, except that only the postalAddress attribute is
+ requested.
+
+ The next example is an LDAP URL referring to the set of entries found
+ by querying the given LDAP server on port 6666 and doing a subtree
+ search of the University of Michigan for any entry with a common name
+ of "Babs Jensen", retrieving all attributes:
+
+ ldap://host.com:6666/o=University%20of%20Michigan,
+ c=US??sub?(cn=Babs%20Jensen)
+
+ The next example is an LDAP URL referring to all children of the c=GB
+ entry:
+
+ ldap://ldap.itd.umich.edu/c=GB?objectClass?one
+
+ The objectClass attribute is requested to be returned along with the
+ entries, and the default filter of "(objectclass=*)" is used.
+
+ The next example is an LDAP URL to retrieve the mail attribute for
+ the LDAP entry named "o=Question?,c=US" is given below, illustrating
+ the use of the escaping mechanism on the reserved character '?'.
+
+ ldap://ldap.question.com/o=Question%3f,c=US?mail
+
+ The next example illustrates the interaction between LDAP and URL
+ quoting mechanisms.
+
+ ldap://ldap.netscape.com/o=Babsco,c=US??(int=%5c00%5c00%5c00%5c04)
+
+ The filter in this example uses the LDAP escaping mechanism of \ to
+ encode three zero or null bytes in the value. In LDAP, the filter
+ would be written as (int=\00\00\00\04). Because the \ character must
+ be escaped in a URL, the \'s are escaped as %5c in the URL encoding.
+
+ The final example shows the use of the bindname extension to specify
+ the dn a client should use for authentication when resolving the URL.
+
+ ldap:///??sub??bindname=cn=Manager%2co=Foo
+ ldap:///??sub??!bindname=cn=Manager%2co=Foo
+
+ The two URLs are the same, except that the second one marks the
+ bindname extension as critical. Notice the use of the % encoding
+ method to encode the comma in the distinguished name value in the
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+ bindname extension.
+
+7. Security Considerations
+
+ General URL security considerations discussed in [5] are relevant for
+ LDAP URLs.
+
+ The use of security mechanisms when processing LDAP URLs requires
+ particular care, since clients may encounter many different servers
+ via URLs, and since URLs are likely to be processed automatically,
+ without user intervention. A client SHOULD have a user-configurable
+ policy about which servers to connect to using which security
+ mechanisms, and SHOULD NOT make connections that are inconsistent
+ with this policy.
+
+ Sending authentication information, no matter the mechanism, may
+ violate a user's privacy requirements. In the absence of specific
+ policy permitting authentication information to be sent to a server,
+ a client should use an anonymous connection. (Note that clients
+ conforming to previous LDAP URL specifications, where all connections
+ are anonymous and unprotected, are consistent with this
+ specification; they simply have the default security policy.)
+
+ Some authentication methods, in particular reusable passwords sent to
+ the server, may reveal easily-abused information to the remote server
+ or to eavesdroppers in transit, and should not be used in URL
+ processing unless explicitly permitted by policy. Confirmation by
+ the human user of the use of authentication information is
+ appropriate in many circumstances. Use of strong authentication
+ methods that do not reveal sensitive information is much preferred.
+
+ The LDAP URL format allows the specification of an arbitrary LDAP
+ search operation to be performed when evaluating the LDAP URL.
+ Following an LDAP URL may cause unexpected results, for example, the
+ retrieval of large amounts of data, the initiation of a long-lived
+ search, etc. The security implications of resolving an LDAP URL are
+ the same as those of resolving an LDAP search query.
+
+8. Acknowledgements
+
+ The LDAP URL format was originally defined at the University of
+ Michigan. This material is based upon work supported by the National
+ Science Foundation under Grant No. NCR-9416667. The support of both
+ the University of Michigan and the National Science Foundation is
+ gratefully acknowledged.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+ Several people have made valuable comments on this document. In
+ particular RL "Bob" Morgan and Mark Wahl deserve special thanks for
+ their contributions.
+
+9. References
+
+ [1] Wahl, M., Kille, S., and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names",
+ RFC 2253, December 1997.
+
+ [2] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
+
+ [3] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight
+ Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC
+ 2252, December 1997.
+
+ [4] Howes, T., "A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters", RFC
+ 2254, December 1997.
+
+ [5] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource
+ Locators (URL)," RFC 1738, December 1994.
+
+ [6] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
+ Levels," RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Tim Howes
+ Netscape Communications Corp.
+ 501 E. Middlefield Rd.
+ Mountain View, CA 94043
+ USA
+
+ Phone: +1 415 937-3419
+ EMail: howes@netscape.com
+
+
+ Mark Smith
+ Netscape Communications Corp.
+ 501 E. Middlefield Rd.
+ Mountain View, CA 94043
+ USA
+
+ Phone: +1 415 937-3477
+ EMail: mcs@netscape.com
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2255 LDAP URL Format December 1997
+
+
+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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Howes & Smith Standards Track [Page 10]
+
Propchange: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2255.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
svn:eol-style = native
Added: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2256.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2256.txt?rev=592038&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2256.txt (added)
+++ directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2256.txt Mon Nov 5 07:16:53 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,1123 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group M. Wahl
+Request for Comments: 2256 Critical Angle Inc.
+Category: Standards Track December 1997
+
+
+ A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use with LDAPv3
+
+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
+
+ 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.
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+ 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
+
+ This document provides an overview of the attribute types and object
+ classes defined by the ISO and ITU-T committees in the X.500
+ documents, in particular those intended for use by directory clients.
+ This is the most widely used schema for LDAP/X.500 directories, and
+ many other schema definitions for white pages objects use it as a
+ basis. This document does not cover attributes used for the
+ administration of X.500 directory servers, nor does it include
+ attributes defined by other ISO/ITU-T documents.
+
+ 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 [6].
+
+3. General Issues
+
+ This document references syntaxes given in section 6 of this document
+ and section 6 of [1]. Matching rules are listed in section 8 of this
+ document and section 8 of [1].
+
+ The attribute type and object class definitions are written using the
+ BNF form of AttributeTypeDescription and ObjectClassDescription given
+ in [1]. Lines have been folded for readability.
+
+4. Source
+
+ The schema definitions in this document are based on those found in
+ X.500 [2],[3],[4],[5], and updates to these documents, specifically:
+
+ Sections Source
+ ============ ============
+ 5.1 - 5.2 X.501(93)
+ 5.3 - 5.36 X.520(88)
+ 5.37 - 5.41 X.509(93)
+ 5.42 - 5.52 X.520(93)
+ 5.53 - 5.54 X.509(96)
+ 5.55 X.520(96)
+ 6.1 RFC 1274
+ 6.2 (new syntax)
+ 6.3 - 6.6 RFC 1274
+ 7.1 - 7.2 X.501(93)
+ 7.3 - 7.18 X.521(93)
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+ 7.19 - 7.21 X.509(96)
+ 7.22 X.521(96)
+
+ Some attribute names are different from those found in X.520(93).
+
+ Three new attributes supportedAlgorithms, deltaRevocationList and
+ dmdName, and the objectClass dmd, are defined in the X.500(96)
+ documents.
+
+5. Attribute Types
+
+ An LDAP server implementation SHOULD recognize the attribute types
+ described in this section.
+
+5.1. objectClass
+
+ The values of the objectClass attribute describe the kind of object
+ which an entry represents. The objectClass attribute is present in
+ every entry, with at least two values. One of the values is either
+ "top" or "alias".
+
+ ( 2.5.4.0 NAME 'objectClass' EQUALITY objectIdentifierMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 )
+
+5.2. aliasedObjectName
+
+ The aliasedObjectName attribute is used by the directory service if
+ the entry containing this attribute is an alias.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.1 NAME 'aliasedObjectName' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 SINGLE-VALUE )
+
+5.3. knowledgeInformation
+
+ This attribute is no longer used.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.2 NAME 'knowledgeInformation' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{32768} )
+
+5.4. cn
+
+ This is the X.500 commonName attribute, which contains a name of an
+ object. If the object corresponds to a person, it is typically the
+ person's full name.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.3 NAME 'cn' SUP name )
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+5.5. sn
+
+ This is the X.500 surname attribute, which contains the family name
+ of a person.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.4 NAME 'sn' SUP name )
+
+5.6. serialNumber
+
+ This attribute contains the serial number of a device.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.5 NAME 'serialNumber' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44{64} )
+
+5.7. c
+
+ This attribute contains a two-letter ISO 3166 country code
+ (countryName).
+
+ ( 2.5.4.6 NAME 'c' SUP name SINGLE-VALUE )
+
+5.8. l
+
+ This attribute contains the name of a locality, such as a city,
+ county or other geographic region (localityName).
+
+ ( 2.5.4.7 NAME 'l' SUP name )
+
+5.9. st
+
+ This attribute contains the full name of a state or province
+ (stateOrProvinceName).
+
+ ( 2.5.4.8 NAME 'st' SUP name )
+
+5.10. street
+
+ This attribute contains the physical address of the object to which
+ the entry corresponds, such as an address for package delivery
+ (streetAddress).
+
+ ( 2.5.4.9 NAME 'street' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{128} )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+5.11. o
+
+ This attribute contains the name of an organization
+ (organizationName).
+
+ ( 2.5.4.10 NAME 'o' SUP name )
+
+5.12. ou
+
+ This attribute contains the name of an organizational unit
+ (organizationalUnitName).
+
+ ( 2.5.4.11 NAME 'ou' SUP name )
+
+5.13. title
+
+ This attribute contains the title, such as "Vice President", of a
+ person in their organizational context. The "personalTitle"
+ attribute would be used for a person's title independent of their job
+ function.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.12 NAME 'title' SUP name )
+
+5.14. description
+
+ This attribute contains a human-readable description of the object.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.13 NAME 'description' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{1024} )
+
+5.15. searchGuide
+
+ This attribute is for use by X.500 clients in constructing search
+ filters. It is obsoleted by enhancedSearchGuide, described below in
+ 5.48.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.14 NAME 'searchGuide'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.25 )
+
+5.16. businessCategory
+
+ This attribute describes the kind of business performed by an
+ organization.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.15 NAME 'businessCategory' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{128} )
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+5.17. postalAddress
+
+ ( 2.5.4.16 NAME 'postalAddress' EQUALITY caseIgnoreListMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreListSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 )
+
+5.18. postalCode
+
+ ( 2.5.4.17 NAME 'postalCode' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{40} )
+
+5.19. postOfficeBox
+
+ ( 2.5.4.18 NAME 'postOfficeBox' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{40} )
+
+5.20. physicalDeliveryOfficeName
+
+ ( 2.5.4.19 NAME 'physicalDeliveryOfficeName' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{128} )
+
+5.21. telephoneNumber
+
+ ( 2.5.4.20 NAME 'telephoneNumber' EQUALITY telephoneNumberMatch
+ SUBSTR telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50{32} )
+
+5.22. telexNumber
+
+ ( 2.5.4.21 NAME 'telexNumber'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.52 )
+
+5.23. teletexTerminalIdentifier
+
+ ( 2.5.4.22 NAME 'teletexTerminalIdentifier'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.51 )
+
+5.24. facsimileTelephoneNumber
+
+ ( 2.5.4.23 NAME 'facsimileTelephoneNumber'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.22 )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+5.25. x121Address
+
+ ( 2.5.4.24 NAME 'x121Address' EQUALITY numericStringMatch
+ SUBSTR numericStringSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36{15} )
+
+5.26. internationaliSDNNumber
+
+ ( 2.5.4.25 NAME 'internationaliSDNNumber' EQUALITY numericStringMatch
+ SUBSTR numericStringSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36{16} )
+
+5.27. registeredAddress
+
+ This attribute holds a postal address suitable for reception of
+ telegrams or expedited documents, where it is necessary to have the
+ recipient accept delivery.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.26 NAME 'registeredAddress' SUP postalAddress
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 )
+
+5.28. destinationIndicator
+
+ This attribute is used for the telegram service.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.27 NAME 'destinationIndicator' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44{128} )
+
+5.29. preferredDeliveryMethod
+
+ ( 2.5.4.28 NAME 'preferredDeliveryMethod'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.14
+ SINGLE-VALUE )
+
+5.30. presentationAddress
+
+ This attribute contains an OSI presentation address.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.29 NAME 'presentationAddress'
+ EQUALITY presentationAddressMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.43
+ SINGLE-VALUE )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+5.31. supportedApplicationContext
+
+ This attribute contains the identifiers of OSI application contexts.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.30 NAME 'supportedApplicationContext'
+ EQUALITY objectIdentifierMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 )
+
+5.32. member
+
+ ( 2.5.4.31 NAME 'member' SUP distinguishedName )
+
+5.33. owner
+
+ ( 2.5.4.32 NAME 'owner' SUP distinguishedName )
+
+5.34. roleOccupant
+
+ ( 2.5.4.33 NAME 'roleOccupant' SUP distinguishedName )
+
+5.35. seeAlso
+
+ ( 2.5.4.34 NAME 'seeAlso' SUP distinguishedName )
+
+5.36. userPassword
+
+ ( 2.5.4.35 NAME 'userPassword' EQUALITY octetStringMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40{128} )
+
+ Passwords are stored using an Octet String syntax and are not
+ encrypted. Transfer of cleartext passwords are strongly discouraged
+ where the underlying transport service cannot guarantee
+ confidentiality and may result in disclosure of the password to
+ unauthorized parties.
+
+5.37. userCertificate
+
+ This attribute is to be stored and requested in the binary form, as
+ 'userCertificate;binary'.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.36 NAME 'userCertificate'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.8 )
+
+5.38. cACertificate
+
+ This attribute is to be stored and requested in the binary form, as
+ 'cACertificate;binary'.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+ ( 2.5.4.37 NAME 'cACertificate'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.8 )
+
+5.39. authorityRevocationList
+
+ This attribute is to be stored and requested in the binary form, as
+ 'authorityRevocationList;binary'.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.38 NAME 'authorityRevocationList'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.9 )
+
+5.40. certificateRevocationList
+
+ This attribute is to be stored and requested in the binary form, as
+ 'certificateRevocationList;binary'.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.39 NAME 'certificateRevocationList'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.9 )
+
+5.41. crossCertificatePair
+
+ This attribute is to be stored and requested in the binary form, as
+ 'crossCertificatePair;binary'.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.40 NAME 'crossCertificatePair'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.10 )
+
+5.42. name
+
+ The name attribute type is the attribute supertype from which string
+ attribute types typically used for naming may be formed. It is
+ unlikely that values of this type itself will occur in an entry. LDAP
+ server implementations which do not support attribute subtyping need
+ not recognize this attribute in requests. Client implementations
+ MUST NOT assume that LDAP servers are capable of performing attribute
+ subtyping.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.41 NAME 'name' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{32768} )
+
+5.43. givenName
+
+ The givenName attribute is used to hold the part of a person's name
+ which is not their surname nor middle name.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.42 NAME 'givenName' SUP name )
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+5.44. initials
+
+ The initials attribute contains the initials of some or all of an
+ individuals names, but not the surname(s).
+
+ ( 2.5.4.43 NAME 'initials' SUP name )
+
+5.45. generationQualifier
+
+ The generationQualifier attribute contains the part of the name which
+ typically is the suffix, as in "IIIrd".
+
+ ( 2.5.4.44 NAME 'generationQualifier' SUP name )
+
+5.46. x500UniqueIdentifier
+
+ The x500UniqueIdentifier attribute is used to distinguish between
+ objects when a distinguished name has been reused. This is a
+ different attribute type from both the "uid" and "uniqueIdentifier"
+ types.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.45 NAME 'x500UniqueIdentifier' EQUALITY bitStringMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 )
+
+5.47. dnQualifier
+
+ The dnQualifier attribute type specifies disambiguating information
+ to add to the relative distinguished name of an entry. It is
+ intended for use when merging data from multiple sources in order to
+ prevent conflicts between entries which would otherwise have the same
+ name. It is recommended that the value of the dnQualifier attribute
+ be the same for all entries from a particular source.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.46 NAME 'dnQualifier' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 )
+
+5.48. enhancedSearchGuide
+
+ This attribute is for use by X.500 clients in constructing search
+ filters.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.47 NAME 'enhancedSearchGuide'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.21 )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 10]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+5.49. protocolInformation
+
+ This attribute is used in conjunction with the presentationAddress
+ attribute, to provide additional information to the OSI network
+ service.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.48 NAME 'protocolInformation'
+ EQUALITY protocolInformationMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.42 )
+
+5.50. distinguishedName
+
+ This attribute type is not used as the name of the object itself, but
+ it is instead a base type from which attributes with DN syntax
+ inherit.
+
+ It is unlikely that values of this type itself will occur in an
+ entry. LDAP server implementations which do not support attribute
+ subtyping need not recognize this attribute in requests. Client
+ implementations MUST NOT assume that LDAP servers are capable of
+ performing attribute subtyping.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.49 NAME 'distinguishedName' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 )
+
+5.51. uniqueMember
+
+ ( 2.5.4.50 NAME 'uniqueMember' EQUALITY uniqueMemberMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34 )
+
+5.52. houseIdentifier
+
+ This attribute is used to identify a building within a location.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.51 NAME 'houseIdentifier' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
+ SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{32768} )
+
+5.53. supportedAlgorithms
+
+ This attribute is to be stored and requested in the binary form, as
+ 'supportedAlgorithms;binary'.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.52 NAME 'supportedAlgorithms'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.49 )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 11]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+5.54. deltaRevocationList
+
+ This attribute is to be stored and requested in the binary form, as
+ 'deltaRevocationList;binary'.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.53 NAME 'deltaRevocationList'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.9 )
+
+5.55. dmdName
+
+ The value of this attribute specifies a directory management domain
+ (DMD), the administrative authority which operates the directory
+ server.
+
+ ( 2.5.4.54 NAME 'dmdName' SUP name )
+
+6. Syntaxes
+
+ Servers SHOULD recognize the syntaxes defined in this section. Each
+ syntax begins with a sample value of the ldapSyntaxes attribute which
+ defines the OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the syntax. The descriptions of
+ syntax names are not carried in protocol, and are not guaranteed to
+ be unique.
+
+6.1. Delivery Method
+
+ ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.14 DESC 'Delivery Method' )
+
+ Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+ delivery-value = pdm / ( pdm whsp "$" whsp delivery-value )
+
+ pdm = "any" / "mhs" / "physical" / "telex" / "teletex" /
+ "g3fax" / "g4fax" / "ia5" / "videotex" / "telephone"
+
+ Example:
+
+ telephone
+
+6.2. Enhanced Guide
+
+ ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.21 DESC 'Enhanced Guide' )
+
+ Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+ EnhancedGuide = woid whsp "#" whsp criteria whsp "#" whsp subset
+
+ subset = "baseobject" / "oneLevel" / "wholeSubtree"
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 12]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+ The criteria production is defined in the Guide syntax below. This
+ syntax has been added subsequent to RFC 1778.
+
+ Example:
+
+ person#(sn)#oneLevel
+
+6.3. Guide
+
+ ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.25 DESC 'Guide' )
+
+ Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+ guide-value = [ object-class "#" ] criteria
+
+ object-class = woid
+
+ criteria = criteria-item / criteria-set / ( "!" criteria )
+
+ criteria-set = ( [ "(" ] criteria "&" criteria-set [ ")" ] ) /
+ ( [ "(" ] criteria "|" criteria-set [ ")" ] )
+
+ criteria-item = [ "(" ] attributetype "$" match-type [ ")" ]
+
+ match-type = "EQ" / "SUBSTR" / "GE" / "LE" / "APPROX"
+
+ This syntax should not be used for defining new attributes.
+
+6.4. Octet String
+
+ ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 DESC 'Octet String' )
+
+ Values in this syntax are encoded as octet strings.
+
+
+ Example:
+
+ secret
+
+6.5. Teletex Terminal Identifier
+
+ ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.51 DESC 'Teletex Terminal Identifier' )
+
+ Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+ teletex-id = ttx-term 0*("$" ttx-param)
+
+ ttx-term = printablestring
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 13]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+ ttx-param = ttx-key ":" ttx-value
+
+ ttx-key = "graphic" / "control" / "misc" / "page" / "private"
+
+ ttx-value = octetstring
+
+ In the above, the first printablestring is the encoding of the first
+ portion of the teletex terminal identifier to be encoded, and the
+ subsequent 0 or more octetstrings are subsequent portions of the
+ teletex terminal identifier.
+
+6.6. Telex Number
+
+ ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.52 DESC 'Telex Number' )
+
+ Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+ telex-number = actual-number "$" country "$" answerback
+
+ actual-number = printablestring
+
+ country = printablestring
+
+ answerback = printablestring
+
+ In the above, actual-number is the syntactic representation of the
+ number portion of the TELEX number being encoded, country is the
+ TELEX country code, and answerback is the answerback code of a TELEX
+ terminal.
+
+6.7. Supported Algorithm
+
+ ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.49 DESC 'Supported Algorithm' )
+
+ No printable representation of values of the supportedAlgorithms
+ attribute is defined in this document. Clients which wish to store
+ and retrieve this attribute MUST use "supportedAlgorithms;binary", in
+ which the value is transferred as a binary encoding.
+
+7. Object Classes
+
+ LDAP servers MUST recognize the object classes "top" and "subschema".
+ LDAP servers SHOULD recognize all the other object classes listed
+ here as values of the objectClass attribute.
+
+7.1. top
+
+ ( 2.5.6.0 NAME 'top' ABSTRACT MUST objectClass )
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 14]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+7.2. alias
+
+ ( 2.5.6.1 NAME 'alias' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST aliasedObjectName )
+
+7.3. country
+
+ ( 2.5.6.2 NAME 'country' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST c
+ MAY ( searchGuide $ description ) )
+
+7.4. locality
+
+ ( 2.5.6.3 NAME 'locality' SUP top STRUCTURAL
+ MAY ( street $ seeAlso $ searchGuide $ st $ l $ description ) )
+
+7.5. organization
+
+ ( 2.5.6.4 NAME 'organization' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST o
+ MAY ( userPassword $ searchGuide $ seeAlso $ businessCategory $
+ x121Address $ registeredAddress $ destinationIndicator $
+ preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $ teletexTerminalIdentifier $
+ telephoneNumber $ internationaliSDNNumber $
+ facsimileTelephoneNumber $
+ street $ postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $
+ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ st $ l $ description ) )
+
+7.6. organizationalUnit
+
+ ( 2.5.6.5 NAME 'organizationalUnit' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST ou
+ MAY ( userPassword $ searchGuide $ seeAlso $ businessCategory $
+ x121Address $ registeredAddress $ destinationIndicator $
+ preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $ teletexTerminalIdentifier $
+ telephoneNumber $ internationaliSDNNumber $
+ facsimileTelephoneNumber $
+ street $ postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $
+ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ st $ l $ description ) )
+
+7.7. person
+
+ ( 2.5.6.6 NAME 'person' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST ( sn $ cn )
+ MAY ( userPassword $ telephoneNumber $ seeAlso $ description ) )
+
+7.8. organizationalPerson
+
+ ( 2.5.6.7 NAME 'organizationalPerson' SUP person STRUCTURAL
+ MAY ( title $ x121Address $ registeredAddress $
+ destinationIndicator $
+ preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $ teletexTerminalIdentifier $
+ telephoneNumber $ internationaliSDNNumber $
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 15]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+ facsimileTelephoneNumber $
+ street $ postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $
+ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ ou $ st $ l ) )
+
+7.9. organizationalRole
+
+ ( 2.5.6.8 NAME 'organizationalRole' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST cn
+ MAY ( x121Address $ registeredAddress $ destinationIndicator $
+ preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $ teletexTerminalIdentifier $
+ telephoneNumber $ internationaliSDNNumber $
+ facsimileTelephoneNumber $
+ seeAlso $ roleOccupant $ preferredDeliveryMethod $ street $
+ postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $
+ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ ou $ st $ l $ description ) )
+
+7.10. groupOfNames
+
+ ( 2.5.6.9 NAME 'groupOfNames' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST ( member $ cn )
+ MAY ( businessCategory $ seeAlso $ owner $ ou $ o $ description ) )
+
+7.11. residentialPerson
+
+ ( 2.5.6.10 NAME 'residentialPerson' SUP person STRUCTURAL MUST l
+ MAY ( businessCategory $ x121Address $ registeredAddress $
+ destinationIndicator $ preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $
+ teletexTerminalIdentifier $ telephoneNumber $
+ internationaliSDNNumber $
+ facsimileTelephoneNumber $ preferredDeliveryMethod $ street $
+ postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $
+ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ st $ l ) )
+
+7.12. applicationProcess
+
+ ( 2.5.6.11 NAME 'applicationProcess' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST cn
+ MAY ( seeAlso $ ou $ l $ description ) )
+
+7.13. applicationEntity
+
+ ( 2.5.6.12 NAME 'applicationEntity' SUP top STRUCTURAL
+ MUST ( presentationAddress $ cn )
+ MAY ( supportedApplicationContext $ seeAlso $ ou $ o $ l $
+ description ) )
+
+7.14. dSA
+
+ ( 2.5.6.13 NAME 'dSA' SUP applicationEntity STRUCTURAL
+ MAY knowledgeInformation )
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 16]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+7.15. device
+
+ ( 2.5.6.14 NAME 'device' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST cn
+ MAY ( serialNumber $ seeAlso $ owner $ ou $ o $ l $ description ) )
+
+7.16. strongAuthenticationUser
+
+ ( 2.5.6.15 NAME 'strongAuthenticationUser' SUP top AUXILIARY
+ MUST userCertificate )
+
+7.17. certificationAuthority
+
+ ( 2.5.6.16 NAME 'certificationAuthority' SUP top AUXILIARY
+ MUST ( authorityRevocationList $ certificateRevocationList $
+ cACertificate ) MAY crossCertificatePair )
+
+7.18. groupOfUniqueNames
+
+ ( 2.5.6.17 NAME 'groupOfUniqueNames' SUP top STRUCTURAL
+ MUST ( uniqueMember $ cn )
+ MAY ( businessCategory $ seeAlso $ owner $ ou $ o $ description ) )
+
+7.19. userSecurityInformation
+
+ ( 2.5.6.18 NAME 'userSecurityInformation' SUP top AUXILIARY
+ MAY ( supportedAlgorithms ) )
+
+7.20. certificationAuthority-V2
+
+ ( 2.5.6.16.2 NAME 'certificationAuthority-V2' SUP
+ certificationAuthority
+ AUXILIARY MAY ( deltaRevocationList ) )
+
+7.21. cRLDistributionPoint
+
+ ( 2.5.6.19 NAME 'cRLDistributionPoint' SUP top STRUCTURAL
+ MUST ( cn ) MAY ( certificateRevocationList $
+ authorityRevocationList $
+ deltaRevocationList ) )
+
+7.22. dmd
+
+ ( 2.5.6.20 NAME 'dmd' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST ( dmdName )
+ MAY ( userPassword $ searchGuide $ seeAlso $ businessCategory $
+ x121Address $ registeredAddress $ destinationIndicator $
+ preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $ teletexTerminalIdentifier $
+ telephoneNumber $ internationaliSDNNumber $
+ facsimileTelephoneNumber $
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 17]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+ street $ postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $
+ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ st $ l $ description ) )
+
+8. Matching Rules
+
+ Servers MAY implement additional matching rules.
+
+8.1. octetStringMatch
+
+ Servers which implement the extensibleMatch filter SHOULD allow the
+ matching rule 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.
+
+ ( 2.5.13.17 NAME 'octetStringMatch'
+ SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 )
+
+9. Security Considerations
+
+ 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.
+
+ Transfer of cleartext passwords are strongly discouraged where the
+ underlying transport service cannot guarantee confidentiality and may
+ result in disclosure of the password to unauthorized parties.
+
+10. Acknowledgements
+
+ The definitions on which this document have been developed by
+ committees for telecommunications and international standards. No
+ new attribute definitions have been added. The syntax definitions
+ are based on the ISODE "QUIPU" implementation of X.500.
+
+11. Bibliography
+
+ [1] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and S. Kille,
+ "Lightweight X.500 Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute
+ Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.
+
+ [2] The Directory: Models. ITU-T Recommendation X.501, 1996.
+
+ [3] The Directory: Authentication Framework. ITU-T Recommendation
+ X.509, 1996.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 18]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema December 1997
+
+
+ [4] The Directory: Selected Attribute Types. ITU-T Recommendation
+ X.520, 1996.
+
+ [5] The Directory: Selected Object Classes. ITU-T Recommendation
+ X.521, 1996.
+
+ [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
+ Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+12. Author's Address
+
+ 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
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl Standards Track [Page 19]
+
+RFC 2256 LDAPv3 Schema 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 Standards Track [Page 20]
+
Propchange: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2256.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
svn:eol-style = native
Added: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2596.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2596.txt?rev=592038&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2596.txt (added)
+++ directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2596.txt Mon Nov 5 07:16:53 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group M. Wahl
+Request for Comments: 2596 Innosoft International, Inc.
+Category: Standards Track T. Howes
+ Netscape Communications Corp.
+ May 1999
+
+
+ Use of Language Codes in LDAP
+
+
+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 (1999). All Rights Reserved.
+
+1. Abstract
+
+ The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol [1] provides a means for
+ clients to interrogate and modify information stored in a distributed
+ directory system. The information in the directory is maintained as
+ attributes [2] of entries. Most of these attributes have syntaxes
+ which are human-readable strings, and it is desirable to be able to
+ indicate the natural language associated with attribute values.
+
+ This document describes how language codes [3] are carried in LDAP
+ and are to be interpreted by LDAP servers. All implementations MUST
+ be prepared to accept language codes in the LDAP protocols. Servers
+ may or may not be capable of storing attributes with language codes
+ in the directory. This document does not specify how to determine
+ whether particular attributes can or cannot have language codes.
+
+ 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].
+
+2. Language Codes
+
+ Section 2 of RFC 1766 [3] describes the language code format which is
+ used in LDAP. Briefly, it is a string of ASCII alphabetic characters
+ and hyphens. Examples include "fr", "en-US" and "ja-JP".
+
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP May 1999
+
+
+ Language codes are case insensitive. For example, the language code
+ "en-us" is the same as "EN-US" and "en-US".
+
+ Implementations MUST NOT otherwise interpret the structure of the
+ code when comparing two codes, and MUST treat them as simply strings
+ of characters. Client and server implementations MUST allow any
+ arbitrary string which follows the patterns given in RFC 1766 to be
+ used as a language code.
+
+3. Use of Language Codes in LDAP
+
+ This section describes how LDAP implementations MUST interpret
+ language codes in performing operations.
+
+ In general, an attribute with a language code is to be treated as a
+ subtype of the attribute without a language code. If a server does
+ not support storing language codes with attribute values in the DIT,
+ then it MUST always treat an attribute with a language code as an
+ unrecognized attribute.
+
+3.1. Attribute Description
+
+ An attribute consists of a type, a list of options for that type, and
+ a set of one or more values. In LDAP, the type and the options are
+ combined into the AttributeDescription, defined in section 4.1.5 of
+ [1]. This is represented as an attribute type name and a possibly-
+ empty list of options. One of these options associates a natural
+ language with values for that attribute.
+
+ language-option = "lang-" lang-code
+
+ lang-code = printable-ascii ; a code as defined in RFC 1766
+
+ Multiple language options may be present on a particular value.
+
+ The language code has no effect on the character set encoding for
+ string representations of DirectoryString syntax values; the UTF-8
+ representation of UniversalString (ISO 10646) is always used.
+
+ Examples of valid AttributeDescription:
+ givenName;lang-en-US
+ CN;lang-ja
+
+ In LDAP and in examples in this document, a directory attribute is
+ represented as an AttributeDescription with a list of values. Note
+ that the data could be stored in the LDAP server in a different
+ representation.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP May 1999
+
+
+3.2. Distinguished Names and Relative Distinguished Names
+
+ No attribute description options are permitted in Distinguished Names
+ or Relative Distinguished Names. Thus language codes MUST NOT be
+ used in forming DNs.
+
+3.3. Search Filter
+
+ If a language code is present in an AttributeDescription in a search
+ filter, then only attribute values in the directory which match the
+ base attribute type or its subtype, the language code and the
+ assertion value match this filter.
+
+ Thus for example a filter of an equality match of type "name;lang-
+ en-US" and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the following
+ directory entry
+
+ objectclass: top DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+ objectclass: person DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+ name;lang-EN-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
+ name;lang-EN-US: Billy Bob DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
+ CN;lang-en-us: Billy Ray MATCHES
+ CN;lang-EN-US;dynamic: Billy Ray MATCHES
+ CN;lang-en;dynamic: Billy Ray DOES NOT MATCH (differing lang-)
+ name: Billy Ray DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
+ SN: Ray DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
+
+ (Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".)
+
+ Client implementors should however note that providing a language
+ code in a search filter AttributeDescription will often filter out
+ desirable values where the language code does not match exactly. For
+ example, the filter (name;lang-en=Billy Ray) does NOT match the
+ attribute "name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray".
+
+ If the server does not support storing language codes with attribute
+ values in the DIT, then any filter which includes a language code
+ will always fail to match, as it is an unrecognized attribute type.
+ No error would be returned because of this; a presence filter would
+ evaluate to FALSE and all other forms to Undefined.
+
+ If no language code is specified in the search filter, then only the
+ base attribute type and the assertion value need match the value in
+ the directory.
+
+ Thus for example a filter of an equality match of type "name" and
+ assertion value "Billy Ray", against the following directory entry
+
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP May 1999
+
+
+ objectclass: top DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+ objectclass: person DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+ name;lang-EN-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
+ name;lang-EN-US: Billy Bob DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
+ CN;lang-EN-US;dynamic: Billy Ray MATCHES
+ CN;lang-en;dynamic: Billy Ray MATCHES
+ name: Billy Ray MATCHES
+ SN: Ray DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
+
+ Thus in general, clients SHOULD NOT use the language code option in
+ AttributeDescription fields in search filters.
+
+3.4. Compare
+
+ A language code can be present in an AttributeDescription used in a
+ compare request AttributeValueAssertion. This is to be treated by
+ servers the same as the use of language codes in a search filter with
+ an equality match, as described in the previous section. If there is
+ no attribute in the entry with the same subtype and language code,
+ the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.
+
+ Thus for example a compare request of type "name" and assertion value
+ "Johann", against an entry with all the following directory entry
+
+ objectclass: top
+ objectclass: person
+ givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
+ CN: Johann Sibelius
+ SN: Sibelius
+
+ will cause the server to return compareTrue.
+
+ However, if the client issued a compare request of type "name;lang-
+ de" and assertion value "Johann" against the above entry, the request
+ would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.
+
+ If the server does not support storing language codes with attribute
+ values in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language code
+ will always fail to locate an attribute type, and noSuchAttributeType
+ will be returned.
+
+ Thus in general, clients SHOULD NOT use the language code option in
+ AttributeDescription fields in the compare request.
+
+3.5. Requested Attributes in Search
+
+ Clients MAY provide language codes in AttributeDescription in the
+ requested attribute list in a search request.
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP May 1999
+
+
+ If a language code is provided in an attribute description, then only
+ attribute values in a directory entry which have the same language
+ code as that provided are to be returned. Thus if a client requests
+ an attribute "description;lang-en", the server MUST NOT return values
+ of an attribute "description" or "description;lang-fr".
+
+ Clients MAY provide in the attribute list multiple
+ AttributeDescription which have the same base attribute type but
+ different options. For example a client MAY provide both "name;lang-
+ en" and "name;lang-fr", and this would permit an attribute with
+ either language code to be returned. Note there would be no need to
+ provide both "name" and "name;lang-en" since all subtypes of name
+ would match "name".
+
+ If a server does not support storing language codes with attribute
+ values in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
+ include language codes are to be ignored, just as if they were
+ unknown attribute types.
+
+ If a request is made specifying all attributes or an attribute is
+ requested without providing a language code, then all attribute
+ values regardless of their language code are returned.
+
+ For example, if the client requests a "description" attribute, and a
+ matching entry contains
+
+ objectclass: top
+ objectclass: organization
+ O: Software GmbH
+ description: software
+ description;lang-en: software products
+ description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte
+ postalAddress: Berlin 8001 Germany
+ postalAddress;lang-de: Berlin 8001 Deutschland
+
+ The server will return:
+
+ description: software
+ description;lang-en: software products
+ description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte
+
+3.6. Add Operation
+
+ Clients MAY provide language codes in AttributeDescription in
+ attributes of a new entry to be created, subject to the limitation
+ that the client MUST NOT use language codes in the attribute value or
+ values which form the RDN of the entry.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP May 1999
+
+
+ A client MAY provide multiple attributes with the same attribute type
+ and value, so long as each attribute has a different language code,
+ and at most one attribute does not have a language code option.
+
+ Servers which support storing language codes in the DIT MUST allow
+ any attribute it recognizes that has the Directory String syntax to
+ have a language option associated with it. Servers SHOULD allow
+ language options to be associated with other attributes.
+
+ For example, the following is a legal request.
+
+ objectclass: top
+ objectclass: person
+ objectclass: residentialPerson
+ name: John Smith
+ CN: John Smith
+ CN;lang-en: John Smith
+ SN: Smith
+ streetAddress: 1 University Street
+ streetAddress;lang-en: 1 University Street
+ streetAddress;lang-fr: 1 rue Universite
+ houseIdentifier;lang-fr: 9e etage
+
+ If a server does not support storing language codes with attribute
+ values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an AttributeDescription with a
+ language code as an unrecognized attribute. If the server forbids the
+ addition of unrecognized attributes then it MUST fail the add request
+ with the appropriate result code.
+
+3.7. Modify Operation
+
+ A client MAY provide a language code in an AttributeDescription as
+ part of a modification element in the modify operation.
+
+ Attribute types and language codes MUST match exactly against values
+ stored in the directory. For example, if the modification is a
+ "delete", then if the stored values to be deleted have a language
+ code, the language code MUST be provided in the modify operation, and
+ if the stored values to be deleted do not have a language code, then
+ no language code is to be provided.
+
+ If the server does not support storing language codes with attribute
+ values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an AttributeDescription with a
+ language code as an unrecognized attribute, and MUST fail the request
+ with an appropriate result code.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP May 1999
+
+
+3.8. Diagnostic Messages
+
+ Servers SHOULD use only printable ASCII characters in the
+ errorMessage field, as not all clients will be able to display the
+ full range of Unicode.
+
+4. Differences from X.500(1997)
+
+ X.500(1997) defines a different mechanism, contexts, as the means of
+ representing language tags. This section summarizes the major
+ differences in approach.
+
+ a) An X.500 operation which has specified a language code on a value
+ matches a value in the directory without a language code.
+ b) LDAP references RFC 1766, which allows for IANA registration of
+ new tags.
+ c) LDAP does not allow language codes in distinguished names.
+ d) X.500 describes subschema administration procedures to allow
+ language codes to be associated with particular attributes types.
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ There are no known security considerations for this document. See
+ the security considerations sections of [1] and [2] for security
+ considerations of LDAP in general.
+
+6. Acknowledgements
+
+ This document is a product of the IETF ASID and LDAPEXT working
+ groups. Martin Duerst provided many valuable comments on an earlier
+ version of this document.
+
+7. Bibliography
+
+ [1] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
+
+ [2] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight
+ X.500 Directory Access Protocol Attribute Syntax Definitions",
+ RFC 2252, December 1997.
+
+ [3] Alvestrand, H.,"Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC
+ 1766, March 1995.
+
+ [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
+ Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP May 1999
+
+
+8. Authors' Addresses
+
+ Mark Wahl
+ Innosoft International, Inc.
+ 8911 Capital of Texas Hwy Suite 4140
+ Austin, TX 78759 USA
+
+ EMail: M.Wahl@innosoft.com
+
+
+ Tim Howes
+ Netscape Communications Corp.
+ 501 E. Middlefield Rd
+ Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
+
+ Phone: +1 650 937-3419
+ EMail: howes@netscape.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP May 1999
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl & Howes Standards Track [Page 9]
+
Propchange: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc2596.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
svn:eol-style = native