You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@directory.apache.org by se...@apache.org on 2018/09/09 15:55:44 UTC
svn commit: r1034904 [16/35] - in
/websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14:
./ apache_directory_studio/ apache_directory_studio/css/
apache_directory_studio/images/ apacheds/ apacheds/css/ apacheds/images/
apacheds/...
Added: websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14/ldap_browser/rfc/rfc4514.txt
==============================================================================
--- websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14/ldap_browser/rfc/rfc4514.txt (added)
+++ websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14/ldap_browser/rfc/rfc4514.txt Sun Sep 9 15:55:38 2018
@@ -0,0 +1,843 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group K. Zeilenga, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 4514 OpenLDAP Foundation
+Obsoletes: 2253 June 2006
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
+ String Representation of Distinguished Names
+
+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 (2006).
+
+Abstract
+
+ The X.500 Directory uses distinguished names (DNs) as primary keys to
+ entries in the directory. This document defines the string
+ representation used in the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP) to transfer distinguished names. The string representation is
+ designed to give a clean representation of commonly used
+ distinguished names, while being able to represent any distinguished
+ name.
+
+1. Background and Intended Usage
+
+ In X.500-based directory systems [X.500], including those accessed
+ using the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [RFC4510],
+ distinguished names (DNs) are used to unambiguously refer to
+ directory entries [X.501][RFC4512].
+
+ The structure of a DN [X.501] is described in terms of ASN.1 [X.680].
+ In the X.500 Directory Access Protocol [X.511] (and other ITU-defined
+ directory protocols), DNs are encoded using the Basic Encoding Rules
+ (BER) [X.690]. In LDAP, DNs are represented in the string form
+ described in this document.
+
+ It is important to have a common format to be able to unambiguously
+ represent a distinguished name. The primary goal of this
+ specification is ease of encoding and decoding. A secondary goal is
+ to have names that are human readable. It is not expected that LDAP
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ implementations with a human user interface would display these
+ strings directly to the user, but that they would most likely be
+ performing translations (such as expressing attribute type names in
+ the local national language).
+
+ This document defines the string representation of Distinguished
+ Names used in LDAP [RFC4511][RFC4517]. Section 2 details the
+ RECOMMENDED algorithm for converting a DN from its ASN.1 structured
+ representation to a string. Section 3 details how to convert a DN
+ from a string to an ASN.1 structured representation.
+
+ While other documents may define other algorithms for converting a DN
+ from its ASN.1 structured representation to a string, all algorithms
+ MUST produce strings that adhere to the requirements of Section 3.
+
+ This document does not define a canonical string representation for
+ DNs. Comparison of DNs for equality is to be performed in accordance
+ with the distinguishedNameMatch matching rule [RFC4517].
+
+ This document is a integral part of the LDAP technical specification
+ [RFC4510], which obsoletes the previously defined LDAP technical
+ specification, RFC 3377, in its entirety. This document obsoletes
+ RFC 2253. Changes since RFC 2253 are summarized in Appendix B.
+
+ This specification assumes familiarity with X.500 [X.500] and the
+ concept of Distinguished Name [X.501][RFC4512].
+
+1.1. Conventions
+
+ 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119].
+
+ Character names in this document use the notation for code points and
+ names from the Unicode Standard [Unicode]. For example, the letter
+ "a" may be represented as either <U+0061> or <LATIN SMALL LETTER A>.
+
+ Note: a glossary of terms used in Unicode can be found in [Glossary].
+ Information on the Unicode character encoding model can be found in
+ [CharModel].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+2. Converting DistinguishedName from ASN.1 to a String
+
+ X.501 [X.501] defines the ASN.1 [X.680] structure of distinguished
+ name. The following is a variant provided for discussion purposes.
+
+ DistinguishedName ::= RDNSequence
+
+ RDNSequence ::= SEQUENCE OF RelativeDistinguishedName
+
+ RelativeDistinguishedName ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF
+ AttributeTypeAndValue
+
+ AttributeTypeAndValue ::= SEQUENCE {
+ type AttributeType,
+ value AttributeValue }
+
+ This section defines the RECOMMENDED algorithm for converting a
+ distinguished name from an ASN.1-structured representation to a UTF-8
+ [RFC3629] encoded Unicode [Unicode] character string representation.
+ Other documents may describe other algorithms for converting a
+ distinguished name to a string, but only strings that conform to the
+ grammar defined in Section 3 SHALL be produced by LDAP
+ implementations.
+
+2.1. Converting the RDNSequence
+
+ If the RDNSequence is an empty sequence, the result is the empty or
+ zero-length string.
+
+ Otherwise, the output consists of the string encodings of each
+ RelativeDistinguishedName in the RDNSequence (according to Section
+ 2.2), starting with the last element of the sequence and moving
+ backwards toward the first.
+
+ The encodings of adjoining RelativeDistinguishedNames are separated
+ by a comma (',' U+002C) character.
+
+2.2. Converting RelativeDistinguishedName
+
+ When converting from an ASN.1 RelativeDistinguishedName to a string,
+ the output consists of the string encodings of each
+ AttributeTypeAndValue (according to Section 2.3), in any order.
+
+ Where there is a multi-valued RDN, the outputs from adjoining
+ AttributeTypeAndValues are separated by a plus sign ('+' U+002B)
+ character.
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+2.3. Converting AttributeTypeAndValue
+
+ The AttributeTypeAndValue is encoded as the string representation of
+ the AttributeType, followed by an equals sign ('=' U+003D) character,
+ followed by the string representation of the AttributeValue. The
+ encoding of the AttributeValue is given in Section 2.4.
+
+ If the AttributeType is defined to have a short name (descriptor)
+ [RFC4512] and that short name is known to be registered [REGISTRY]
+ [RFC4520] as identifying the AttributeType, that short name, a
+ <descr>, is used. Otherwise the AttributeType is encoded as the
+ dotted-decimal encoding, a <numericoid>, of its OBJECT IDENTIFIER.
+ The <descr> and <numericoid> are defined in [RFC4512].
+
+ Implementations are not expected to dynamically update their
+ knowledge of registered short names. However, implementations SHOULD
+ provide a mechanism to allow their knowledge of registered short
+ names to be updated.
+
+2.4. Converting an AttributeValue from ASN.1 to a String
+
+ If the AttributeType is of the dotted-decimal form, the
+ AttributeValue is represented by an number sign ('#' U+0023)
+ character followed by the hexadecimal encoding of each of the octets
+ of the BER encoding of the X.500 AttributeValue. This form is also
+ used when the syntax of the AttributeValue does not have an LDAP-
+ specific ([RFC4517], Section 3.1) string encoding defined for it, or
+ the LDAP-specific string encoding is not restricted to UTF-8-encoded
+ Unicode characters. This form may also be used in other cases, such
+ as when a reversible string representation is desired (see Section
+ 5.2).
+
+ Otherwise, if the AttributeValue is of a syntax that has a LDAP-
+ specific string encoding, the value is converted first to a UTF-8-
+ encoded Unicode string according to its syntax specification (see
+ [RFC4517], Section 3.3, for examples). If that UTF-8-encoded Unicode
+ string does not have any of the following characters that need
+ escaping, then that string can be used as the string representation
+ of the value.
+
+ - a space (' ' U+0020) or number sign ('#' U+0023) occurring at
+ the beginning of the string;
+
+ - a space (' ' U+0020) character occurring at the end of the
+ string;
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ - one of the characters '"', '+', ',', ';', '<', '>', or '\'
+ (U+0022, U+002B, U+002C, U+003B, U+003C, U+003E, or U+005C,
+ respectively);
+
+ - the null (U+0000) character.
+
+ Other characters may be escaped.
+
+ Each octet of the character to be escaped is replaced by a backslash
+ and two hex digits, which form a single octet in the code of the
+ character. Alternatively, if and only if the character to be escaped
+ is one of
+
+ ' ', '"', '#', '+', ',', ';', '<', '=', '>', or '\'
+ (U+0020, U+0022, U+0023, U+002B, U+002C, U+003B,
+ U+003C, U+003D, U+003E, U+005C, respectively)
+
+ it can be prefixed by a backslash ('\' U+005C).
+
+ Examples of the escaping mechanism are shown in Section 4.
+
+3. Parsing a String Back to a Distinguished Name
+
+ The string representation of Distinguished Names is restricted to
+ UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode [Unicode] characters. The structure
+ of this string representation is specified using the following
+ Augmented BNF [RFC4234] grammar:
+
+ distinguishedName = [ relativeDistinguishedName
+ *( COMMA relativeDistinguishedName ) ]
+ relativeDistinguishedName = attributeTypeAndValue
+ *( PLUS attributeTypeAndValue )
+ attributeTypeAndValue = attributeType EQUALS attributeValue
+ attributeType = descr / numericoid
+ attributeValue = string / hexstring
+
+ ; The following characters are to be escaped when they appear
+ ; in the value to be encoded: ESC, one of <escaped>, leading
+ ; SHARP or SPACE, trailing SPACE, and NULL.
+ string = [ ( leadchar / pair ) [ *( stringchar / pair )
+ ( trailchar / pair ) ] ]
+
+ leadchar = LUTF1 / UTFMB
+ LUTF1 = %x01-1F / %x21 / %x24-2A / %x2D-3A /
+ %x3D / %x3F-5B / %x5D-7F
+
+ trailchar = TUTF1 / UTFMB
+ TUTF1 = %x01-1F / %x21 / %x23-2A / %x2D-3A /
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ %x3D / %x3F-5B / %x5D-7F
+
+ stringchar = SUTF1 / UTFMB
+ SUTF1 = %x01-21 / %x23-2A / %x2D-3A /
+ %x3D / %x3F-5B / %x5D-7F
+
+ pair = ESC ( ESC / special / hexpair )
+ special = escaped / SPACE / SHARP / EQUALS
+ escaped = DQUOTE / PLUS / COMMA / SEMI / LANGLE / RANGLE
+ hexstring = SHARP 1*hexpair
+ hexpair = HEX HEX
+
+ where the productions <descr>, <numericoid>, <COMMA>, <DQUOTE>,
+ <EQUALS>, <ESC>, <HEX>, <LANGLE>, <NULL>, <PLUS>, <RANGLE>, <SEMI>,
+ <SPACE>, <SHARP>, and <UTFMB> are defined in [RFC4512].
+
+ Each <attributeType>, either a <descr> or a <numericoid>, refers to
+ an attribute type of an attribute value assertion (AVA). The
+ <attributeType> is followed by an <EQUALS> and an <attributeValue>.
+ The <attributeValue> is either in <string> or <hexstring> form.
+
+ If in <string> form, a LDAP string representation asserted value can
+ be obtained by replacing (left to right, non-recursively) each <pair>
+ appearing in the <string> as follows:
+
+ replace <ESC><ESC> with <ESC>;
+ replace <ESC><special> with <special>;
+ replace <ESC><hexpair> with the octet indicated by the <hexpair>.
+
+ If in <hexstring> form, a BER representation can be obtained from
+ converting each <hexpair> of the <hexstring> to the octet indicated
+ by the <hexpair>.
+
+ There is one or more attribute value assertions, separated by <PLUS>,
+ for a relative distinguished name.
+
+ There is zero or more relative distinguished names, separated by
+ <COMMA>, for a distinguished name.
+
+ Implementations MUST recognize AttributeType name strings
+ (descriptors) listed in the following table, but MAY recognize other
+ name strings.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ String X.500 AttributeType
+ ------ --------------------------------------------
+ CN commonName (2.5.4.3)
+ L localityName (2.5.4.7)
+ ST stateOrProvinceName (2.5.4.8)
+ O organizationName (2.5.4.10)
+ OU organizationalUnitName (2.5.4.11)
+ C countryName (2.5.4.6)
+ STREET streetAddress (2.5.4.9)
+ DC domainComponent (0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.25)
+ UID userId (0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.1)
+
+ These attribute types are described in [RFC4519].
+
+ Implementations MAY recognize other DN string representations.
+ However, as there is no requirement that alternative DN string
+ representations be recognized (and, if so, how), implementations
+ SHOULD only generate DN strings in accordance with Section 2 of this
+ document.
+
+4. Examples
+
+ This notation is designed to be convenient for common forms of name.
+ This section gives a few examples of distinguished names written
+ using this notation. First is a name containing three relative
+ distinguished names (RDNs):
+
+ UID=jsmith,DC=example,DC=net
+
+ Here is an example of a name containing three RDNs, in which the
+ first RDN is multi-valued:
+
+ OU=Sales+CN=J. Smith,DC=example,DC=net
+
+ This example shows the method of escaping of a special characters
+ appearing in a common name:
+
+ CN=James \"Jim\" Smith\, III,DC=example,DC=net
+
+ The following shows the method for encoding a value that contains a
+ carriage return character:
+
+ CN=Before\0dAfter,DC=example,DC=net
+
+ In this RDN example, the type in the RDN is unrecognized, and the
+ value is the BER encoding of an OCTET STRING containing two octets,
+ 0x48 and 0x69.
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=#04024869
+
+ Finally, this example shows an RDN whose commonName value consists of
+ 5 letters:
+
+ Unicode Character Code UTF-8 Escaped
+ ------------------------------- ------ ------ --------
+ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L U+004C 0x4C L
+ LATIN SMALL LETTER U U+0075 0x75 u
+ LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CARON U+010D 0xC48D \C4\8D
+ LATIN SMALL LETTER I U+0069 0x69 i
+ LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH ACUTE U+0107 0xC487 \C4\87
+
+ This could be encoded in printable ASCII [ASCII] (useful for
+ debugging purposes) as:
+
+ CN=Lu\C4\8Di\C4\87
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ The following security considerations are specific to the handling of
+ distinguished names. LDAP security considerations are discussed in
+ [RFC4511] and other documents comprising the LDAP Technical
+ Specification [RFC4510].
+
+5.1. Disclosure
+
+ Distinguished Names typically consist of descriptive information
+ about the entries they name, which can be people, organizations,
+ devices, or other real-world objects. This frequently includes some
+ of the following kinds of information:
+
+ - the common name of the object (i.e., a person's full name)
+ - an email or TCP/IP address
+ - its physical location (country, locality, city, street address)
+ - organizational attributes (such as department name or
+ affiliation)
+
+ In some cases, such information can be considered sensitive. In many
+ countries, privacy laws exist that prohibit disclosure of certain
+ kinds of descriptive information (e.g., email addresses). Hence,
+ server implementers are encouraged to support Directory Information
+ Tree (DIT) structural rules and name forms [RFC4512], as these
+ provide a mechanism for administrators to select appropriate naming
+ attributes for entries. Administrators are encouraged to use
+ mechanisms, access controls, and other administrative controls that
+ may be available to restrict use of attributes containing sensitive
+ information in naming of entries. Additionally, use of
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ authentication and data security services in LDAP [RFC4513][RFC4511]
+ should be considered.
+
+5.2. Use of Distinguished Names in Security Applications
+
+ The transformations of an AttributeValue value from its X.501 form to
+ an LDAP string representation are not always reversible back to the
+ same BER (Basic Encoding Rules) or DER (Distinguished Encoding Rules)
+ form. An example of a situation that requires the DER form of a
+ distinguished name is the verification of an X.509 certificate.
+
+ For example, a distinguished name consisting of one RDN with one AVA,
+ in which the type is commonName and the value is of the TeletexString
+ choice with the letters 'Sam', would be represented in LDAP as the
+ string <CN=Sam>. Another distinguished name in which the value is
+ still 'Sam', but is of the PrintableString choice, would have the
+ same representation <CN=Sam>.
+
+ Applications that require the reconstruction of the DER form of the
+ value SHOULD NOT use the string representation of attribute syntaxes
+ when converting a distinguished name to the LDAP format. Instead,
+ they SHOULD use the hexadecimal form prefixed by the number sign ('#'
+ U+0023) as described in the first paragraph of Section 2.4.
+
+6. Acknowledgements
+
+ This document is an update to RFC 2253, by Mark Wahl, Tim Howes, and
+ Steve Kille. RFC 2253 was a product of the IETF ASID Working Group.
+
+ This document is a product of the IETF LDAPBIS Working Group.
+
+7. References
+
+7.1. Normative References
+
+ [REGISTRY] IANA, Object Identifier Descriptors Registry,
+ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldap-parameters>.
+
+ [Unicode] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
+ 3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version
+ 3.0" (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-
+ 61633-5), as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex
+ #27: Unicode 3.1"
+ (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the
+ "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2"
+ (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/).
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ [X.501] International Telecommunication Union -
+ Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The
+ Directory -- Models," X.501(1993) (also ISO/IEC 9594-
+ 2:1994).
+
+ [X.680] International Telecommunication Union -
+ Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "Abstract
+ Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification of Basic
+ Notation", X.680(1997) (also ISO/IEC 8824-1:1998).
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+ 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
+
+ [RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
+ Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
+
+ [RFC4510] Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC
+ 4510, June 2006.
+
+ [RFC4511] Sermersheim, J., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.
+
+ [RFC4512] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP): Directory Information Models", RFC 4512, June
+ 2006.
+
+ [RFC4513] Harrison, R., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security
+ Mechanisms", RFC 4513, June 2006.
+
+ [RFC4517] Legg, S., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules", RFC 4517, June
+ 2006.
+
+ [RFC4519] Sciberras, A., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (LDAP): Schema for User Applications", RFC
+ 4519, June 2006.
+
+ [RFC4520] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
+ (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory
+ Access Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 10]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+7.2. Informative References
+
+ [ASCII] Coded Character Set--7-bit American Standard Code for
+ Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
+
+ [CharModel] Whistler, K. and M. Davis, "Unicode Technical Report
+ #17, Character Encoding Model", UTR17,
+ <http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr17/>, August
+ 2000.
+
+ [Glossary] The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Glossary",
+ <http://www.unicode.org/glossary/>.
+
+ [X.500] International Telecommunication Union -
+ Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The
+ Directory -- Overview of concepts, models and
+ services," X.500(1993) (also ISO/IEC 9594-1:1994).
+
+ [X.511] International Telecommunication Union -
+ Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The
+ Directory: Abstract Service Definition", X.511(1993)
+ (also ISO/IEC 9594-3:1993).
+
+ [X.690] International Telecommunication Union -
+ Telecommunication Standardization Sector,
+ "Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic Encoding
+ Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER), and
+ Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", X.690(1997) (also
+ ISO/IEC 8825-1:1998).
+
+ [RFC2849] Good, G., "The LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) -
+ Technical Specification", RFC 2849, June 2000.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 11]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+Appendix A. Presentation Issues
+
+ This appendix is provided for informational purposes only; it is not
+ a normative part of this specification.
+
+ The string representation described in this document is not intended
+ to be presented to humans without translation. However, at times it
+ may be desirable to present non-translated DN strings to users. This
+ section discusses presentation issues associated with non-translated
+ DN strings. Issues with presentation of translated DN strings are
+ not discussed in this appendix. Transcoding issues are also not
+ discussed in this appendix.
+
+ This appendix provides guidance for applications presenting DN
+ strings to users. This section is not comprehensive; it does not
+ discuss all presentation issues that implementers may face.
+
+ Not all user interfaces are capable of displaying the full set of
+ Unicode characters. Some Unicode characters are not displayable.
+
+ It is recommended that human interfaces use the optional hex pair
+ escaping mechanism (Section 2.3) to produce a string representation
+ suitable for display to the user. For example, an application can
+ generate a DN string for display that escapes all non-printable
+ characters appearing in the AttributeValue's string representation
+ (as demonstrated in the final example of Section 4).
+
+ When a DN string is displayed in free-form text, it is often
+ necessary to distinguish the DN string from surrounding text. While
+ this is often done with whitespace (as demonstrated in Section 4), it
+ is noted that DN strings may end with whitespace. Careful readers of
+ Section 3 will note that the characters '<' (U+003C) and '>' (U+003E)
+ may only appear in the DN string if escaped. These characters are
+ intended to be used in free-form text to distinguish a DN string from
+ surrounding text. For example, <CN=Sam\ > distinguishes the string
+ representation of the DN composed of one RDN consisting of the AVA
+ (the commonName (CN) value 'Sam ') from the surrounding text. It
+ should be noted to the user that the wrapping '<' and '>' characters
+ are not part of the DN string.
+
+ DN strings can be quite long. It is often desirable to line-wrap
+ overly long DN strings in presentations. Line wrapping should be
+ done by inserting whitespace after the RDN separator character or, if
+ necessary, after the AVA separator character. It should be noted to
+ the user that the inserted whitespace is not part of the DN string
+ and is to be removed before use in LDAP. For example, the following
+ DN string is long:
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 12]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ CN=Kurt D. Zeilenga,OU=Engineering,L=Redwood Shores,
+ O=OpenLDAP Foundation,ST=California,C=US
+
+ So it has been line-wrapped for readability. The extra whitespace is
+ to be removed before the DN string is used in LDAP.
+
+ Inserting whitespace is not advised because it may not be obvious to
+ the user which whitespace is part of the DN string and which
+ whitespace was added for readability.
+
+ Another alternative is to use the LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF)
+ [RFC2849]. For example:
+
+ # This entry has a long DN...
+ dn: CN=Kurt D. Zeilenga,OU=Engineering,L=Redwood Shores,
+ O=OpenLDAP Foundation,ST=California,C=US
+ CN: Kurt D. Zeilenga
+ SN: Zeilenga
+ objectClass: person
+
+Appendix B. Changes Made since RFC 2253
+
+ This appendix is provided for informational purposes only, it is not
+ a normative part of this specification.
+
+ The following substantive changes were made to RFC 2253:
+
+ - Removed IESG Note. The IESG Note has been addressed.
+ - Replaced all references to ISO 10646-1 with [Unicode].
+ - Clarified (in Section 1) that this document does not define a
+ canonical string representation.
+ - Clarified that Section 2 describes the RECOMMENDED encoding
+ algorithm and that alternative algorithms are allowed. Some
+ encoding options described in RFC 2253 are now treated as
+ alternative algorithms in this specification.
+ - Revised specification (in Section 2) to allow short names of any
+ registered attribute type to appear in string representations of
+ DNs instead of being restricted to a "published table". Removed
+ "as an example" language. Added statement (in Section 3)
+ allowing recognition of additional names but require recognition
+ of those names in the published table. The table now appears in
+ Section 3.
+ - Removed specification of additional requirements for LDAPv2
+ implementations which also support LDAPv3 (RFC 2253, Section 4)
+ as LDAPv2 is now Historic.
+ - Allowed recognition of alternative string representations.
+ - Updated Section 2.4 to allow hex pair escaping of all characters
+ and clarified escaping for when multiple octet UTF-8 encodings
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 13]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+ are present. Indicated that null (U+0000) character is to be
+ escaped. Indicated that equals sign ('=' U+003D) character may
+ be escaped as '\='.
+ - Rewrote Section 3 to use ABNF as defined in RFC 4234.
+ - Updated the Section 3 ABNF. Changes include:
+ + allowed AttributeType short names of length 1 (e.g., 'L'),
+ + used more restrictive <oid> production in AttributeTypes,
+ + did not require escaping of equals sign ('=' U+003D)
+ characters,
+ + did not require escaping of non-leading number sign ('#'
+ U+0023) characters,
+ + allowed space (' ' U+0020) to be escaped as '\ ',
+ + required hex escaping of null (U+0000) characters, and
+ + removed LDAPv2-only constructs.
+ - Updated Section 3 to describe how to parse elements of the
+ grammar.
+ - Rewrote examples.
+ - Added reference to documentations containing general LDAP
+ security considerations.
+ - Added discussion of presentation issues (Appendix A).
+ - Added this appendix.
+
+ In addition, numerous editorial changes were made.
+
+Editor's Address
+
+ Kurt D. Zeilenga
+ OpenLDAP Foundation
+
+ EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 14]
+
+RFC 4514 LDAP: Distinguished Names June 2006
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+ This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+ contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+ retain all their rights.
+
+ This document and the information contained herein 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 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.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+ Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 15]
+
Propchange: websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14/ldap_browser/rfc/rfc4514.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
svn:eol-style = native
Added: websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14/ldap_browser/rfc/rfc4515.txt
==============================================================================
--- websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14/ldap_browser/rfc/rfc4515.txt (added)
+++ websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14/ldap_browser/rfc/rfc4515.txt Sun Sep 9 15:55:38 2018
@@ -0,0 +1,675 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group M. Smith, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 4515 Pearl Crescent, LLC
+Obsoletes: 2254 T. Howes
+Category: Standards Track Opsware, Inc.
+ June 2006
+
+
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
+ String Representation of Search Filters
+
+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 (2006).
+
+Abstract
+
+ Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) search filters are
+ transmitted in the LDAP protocol using a binary representation that
+ is appropriate for use on the network. This document defines a
+ human-readable string representation of LDAP search filters that is
+ appropriate for use in LDAP URLs (RFC 4516) and in other
+ applications.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................2
+ 2. LDAP Search Filter Definition ...................................2
+ 3. String Search Filter Definition .................................3
+ 4. Examples ........................................................5
+ 5. Security Considerations .........................................7
+ 6. Normative References ............................................7
+ 7. Informative References ..........................................8
+ 8. Acknowledgements ................................................8
+ Appendix A: Changes Since RFC 2254 .................................9
+ A.1. Technical Changes ..........................................9
+ A.2. Editorial Changes ..........................................9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [RFC4510] 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; LDAP URLs
+ [RFC4516] are an example of one such application. This document
+ defines a human-readable string format for representing the full
+ range of possible LDAP version 3 search filters, including extended
+ match filters.
+
+ This document is a integral part of the LDAP technical specification
+ [RFC4510], which obsoletes the previously defined LDAP technical
+ specification, RFC 3377, in its entirety.
+
+ This document replaces RFC 2254. Changes to RFC 2254 are summarized
+ in Appendix A.
+
+ 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119].
+
+2. LDAP Search Filter Definition
+
+ An LDAP search filter is defined in Section 4.5.1 of [RFC4511] as
+ follows:
+
+ Filter ::= CHOICE {
+ and [0] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF filter Filter,
+ or [1] SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF filter 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,
+ -- initial and final can occur at most once
+ substrings SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF substring CHOICE {
+ initial [0] AssertionValue,
+ any [1] AssertionValue,
+ final [2] AssertionValue } }
+
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+ AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
+ attributeDesc AttributeDescription,
+ assertionValue AssertionValue }
+
+ MatchingRuleAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {
+ matchingRule [1] MatchingRuleId OPTIONAL,
+ type [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,
+ matchValue [3] AssertionValue,
+ dnAttributes [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }
+
+ AttributeDescription ::= LDAPString
+ -- Constrained to <attributedescription>
+ -- [RFC4512]
+
+ AttributeValue ::= OCTET STRING
+
+ MatchingRuleId ::= LDAPString
+
+ AssertionValue ::= OCTET STRING
+
+ LDAPString ::= OCTET STRING -- UTF-8 encoded,
+ -- [Unicode] characters
+
+ The AttributeDescription, as defined in [RFC4511], is a string
+ representation of the attribute description that is discussed in
+ [RFC4512]. The AttributeValue and AssertionValue OCTET STRING have
+ the form defined in [RFC4517]. The Filter is encoded for
+ transmission over a network using the Basic Encoding Rules (BER)
+ defined in [X.690], with simplifications described in [RFC4511].
+
+3. String Search Filter Definition
+
+ The string representation of an LDAP search filter is a string of
+ UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode characters [Unicode] that is defined
+ by the following grammar, following the ABNF notation defined in
+ [RFC4234]. The productions used that are not defined here are
+ defined in Section 1.4 (Common ABNF Productions) of [RFC4512] unless
+ otherwise noted. The filter format uses a prefix notation.
+
+ filter = LPAREN filtercomp RPAREN
+ filtercomp = and / or / not / item
+ and = AMPERSAND filterlist
+ or = VERTBAR filterlist
+ not = EXCLAMATION filter
+ filterlist = 1*filter
+ item = simple / present / substring / extensible
+ simple = attr filtertype assertionvalue
+ filtertype = equal / approx / greaterorequal / lessorequal
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+ equal = EQUALS
+ approx = TILDE EQUALS
+ greaterorequal = RANGLE EQUALS
+ lessorequal = LANGLE EQUALS
+ extensible = ( attr [dnattrs]
+ [matchingrule] COLON EQUALS assertionvalue )
+ / ( [dnattrs]
+ matchingrule COLON EQUALS assertionvalue )
+ present = attr EQUALS ASTERISK
+ substring = attr EQUALS [initial] any [final]
+ initial = assertionvalue
+ any = ASTERISK *(assertionvalue ASTERISK)
+ final = assertionvalue
+ attr = attributedescription
+ ; The attributedescription rule is defined in
+ ; Section 2.5 of [RFC4512].
+ dnattrs = COLON "dn"
+ matchingrule = COLON oid
+ assertionvalue = valueencoding
+ ; The <valueencoding> rule is used to encode an <AssertionValue>
+ ; from Section 4.1.6 of [RFC4511].
+ valueencoding = 0*(normal / escaped)
+ normal = UTF1SUBSET / UTFMB
+ escaped = ESC HEX HEX
+ UTF1SUBSET = %x01-27 / %x2B-5B / %x5D-7F
+ ; UTF1SUBSET excludes 0x00 (NUL), LPAREN,
+ ; RPAREN, ASTERISK, and ESC.
+ EXCLAMATION = %x21 ; exclamation mark ("!")
+ AMPERSAND = %x26 ; ampersand (or AND symbol) ("&")
+ ASTERISK = %x2A ; asterisk ("*")
+ COLON = %x3A ; colon (":")
+ VERTBAR = %x7C ; vertical bar (or pipe) ("|")
+ TILDE = %x7E ; tilde ("~")
+
+ 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.
+
+ The <valueencoding> rule ensures that the entire filter string is a
+ valid UTF-8 string and provides that the octets that represent the
+ ASCII characters "*" (ASCII 0x2a), "(" (ASCII 0x28), ")" (ASCII
+ 0x29), "\" (ASCII 0x5c), and NUL (ASCII 0x00) are represented as a
+ backslash "\" (ASCII 0x5c) followed by the two hexadecimal digits
+ representing the value of the encoded octet.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+ 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 octets that are part
+ of the <normal> set may be escaped using this mechanism, for example,
+ non-printing ASCII characters.
+
+ For AssertionValues that contain UTF-8 character data, each octet of
+ the character to be escaped is replaced by a backslash and two hex
+ digits, which form a single octet in the code of the character. For
+ example, the filter checking whether the "cn" attribute contained a
+ value with the character "*" anywhere in it would be represented as
+ "(cn=*\2a*)".
+
+ As indicated by the <valueencoding> rule, implementations MUST escape
+ all octets greater than 0x7F that are not part of a valid UTF-8
+ encoding sequence when they generate a string representation of a
+ search filter. Implementations SHOULD accept as input strings that
+ are not valid UTF-8 strings. This is necessary because RFC 2254 did
+ not clearly define the term "string representation" (and in
+ particular did not mention that the string representation of an LDAP
+ search filter is a string of UTF-8-encoded Unicode characters).
+
+4. 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*)
+ (seeAlso=)
+
+ The following examples illustrate the use of extensible matching.
+
+ (cn:caseExactMatch:=Fred Flintstone)
+ (cn:=Betty Rubble)
+ (sn:dn:2.4.6.8.10:=Barney Rubble)
+ (o:dn:=Ace Industry)
+ (:1.2.3:=Wilma Flintstone)
+ (:DN:2.4.6.8.10:=Dino)
+
+ The first example shows use of the matching rule "caseExactMatch."
+
+ The second example demonstrates use of a MatchingRuleAssertion form
+ without a matchingRule.
+
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+ The third example illustrates the use of the ":oid" notation to
+ indicate that the matching rule identified by the OID "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 (indicated by the use of ":dn").
+
+ The fourth example denotes an equality match, except that DN
+ components should be considered part of the entry when doing the
+ match.
+
+ The fifth example is a filter that should be applied to any attribute
+ supporting the matching rule given (since the <attr> has been
+ omitted).
+
+ The sixth and final example is also a filter that should be applied
+ to any attribute supporting the matching rule given. 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)
+ (1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=\04\02\48\69)
+
+ The first example shows the use of the escaping mechanism to
+ represent parenthesis characters. The second shows how to represent
+ a "*" in an assertion 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-octet value
+ 00 00 00 04 (hex), illustrating the use of the escaping mechanism to
+ represent arbitrary data, including NUL characters.
+
+ The fifth example illustrates the use of the escaping mechanism to
+ represent various non-ASCII UTF-8 characters. Specifically, there
+ are 5 characters in the <assertionvalue> portion of this example:
+ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L (U+004C), LATIN SMALL LETTER U (U+0075), LATIN
+ SMALL LETTER C WITH CARON (U+010D), LATIN SMALL LETTER I (U+0069),
+ and LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH ACUTE (U+0107).
+
+ The sixth and final example demonstrates assertion of a BER-encoded
+ value.
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+5. 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.
+
+ Please refer to the Security Considerations sections of [RFC4511] and
+ [RFC4513] for more information.
+
+6. Normative References
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+ 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
+
+ [RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
+ Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
+
+ [RFC4510] Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510, June
+ 2006.
+
+ [RFC4511] Sermersheim, J., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+ Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.
+
+ [RFC4512] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP): Directory Information Models", RFC 4512, June
+ 2006.
+
+ [RFC4513] Harrison, R., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms",
+ RFC 4513, June 2006.
+
+ [RFC4517] Legg, S., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+ (LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules", RFC 4517, June
+ 2006.
+
+ [Unicode] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
+ 3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0"
+ (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5),
+ as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex #27: Unicode
+ 3.1" (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the
+ "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2."
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+7. Informative References
+
+ [RFC4516] Smith, M., Ed. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory
+ Access Protocol (LDAP): Uniform Resource Locator", RFC
+ 4516, June 2006.
+
+ [X.690] Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic, Canonical,
+ and Distinguished Encoding Rules, ITU-T Recommendation
+ X.690, 1994.
+
+8. Acknowledgements
+
+ This document replaces RFC 2254 by Tim Howes. RFC 2254 was a product
+ of the IETF ASID Working Group.
+
+ Changes included in this revised specification are based upon
+ discussions among the authors, discussions within the LDAP (v3)
+ Revision Working Group (ldapbis), and discussions within other IETF
+ Working Groups. The contributions of individuals in these working
+ groups is gratefully acknowledged.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+Appendix A: Changes Since RFC 2254
+
+A.1. Technical Changes
+
+ Replaced [ISO 10646] reference with [Unicode].
+
+ The following technical changes were made to the contents of the
+ "String Search Filter Definition" section:
+
+ Added statement that the string representation is a string of UTF-8-
+ encoded Unicode characters.
+
+ Revised all of the ABNF to use common productions from [RFC4512].
+
+ Replaced the "value" rule with a new "assertionvalue" rule within the
+ "simple", "extensible", and "substring" ("initial", "any", and
+ "final") rules. This matches a change made in [RFC4517].
+
+ Added "(" and ")" around the components of the <extensible>
+ subproductions for clarity.
+
+ Revised the "attr", "matchingrule", and "assertionvalue" ABNF to more
+ precisely reference productions from the [RFC4512] and [RFC4511]
+ documents.
+
+ "String Search Filter Definition" section: replaced "greater" and
+ "less" with "greaterorequal" and "lessorequal" to avoid confusion.
+
+ Introduced the "valueencoding" and associated "normal" and "escaped"
+ rules to reduce the dependence on descriptive text. The "normal"
+ production restricts filter strings to valid UTF-8 sequences.
+
+ Added a statement about expected behavior in light of RFC 2254's lack
+ of a clear definition of "string representation."
+
+A.2. Editorial Changes
+
+ Changed document title to include "LDAP:" prefix.
+
+ IESG Note: removed note about lack of satisfactory mandatory
+ authentication mechanisms.
+
+ Header and "Authors' Addresses" sections: added Mark Smith as the
+ document editor and updated affiliation and contact information.
+
+ "Table of Contents" and "Intellectual Property" sections: added.
+
+ Copyright: updated per latest IETF guidelines.
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+ "Abstract" section: separated from introductory material.
+
+ "Introduction" section: new section; separated from the Abstract.
+ Updated second paragraph to indicate that RFC 2254 is replaced by
+ this document (instead of RFC 1960). Added reference to the
+ [RFC4510] document.
+
+ "LDAP Search Filter Definition" section: made corrections to the LDAP
+ search filter ABNF so it matches that used in [RFC4511].
+
+ Clarified the definition of 'value' (now 'assertionvalue') to take
+ into account the fact that it is not precisely an AttributeAssertion
+ from [RFC4511] Section 4.1.6 (special handling is required for some
+ characters). Added a note that each octet of a character to be
+ escaped is replaced by a backslash and two hex digits, which
+ represent a single octet.
+
+ "Examples" section: added four additional examples: (seeAlso=),
+ (cn:=Betty Rubble), (:1.2.3:=Wilma Flintstone), and
+ (1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=\04\02\48\69). Replaced one occurrence of "a
+ value" with "an assertion value". Corrected the description of this
+ example: (sn:dn:2.4.6.8.10:=Barney Rubble). Replaced the numeric OID
+ in the first extensible match example with "caseExactMatch" to
+ demonstrate use of the descriptive form. Used "DN" (uppercase) in
+ the last extensible match example to remind the reader to treat the
+ <dnattrs> production as case insensitive. Reworded the description
+ of the fourth escaping mechanism example to avoid making assumptions
+ about byte order. Added text to the fifth escaping mechanism example
+ to spell out what the non-ASCII characters are in Unicode terms.
+
+ "Security Considerations" section: added references to [RFC4511] and
+ [RFC4513].
+
+ "Normative References" section: renamed from "References" per new RFC
+ guidelines. Changed from [1] style to [RFC4511] style throughout the
+ document. Added entries for [Unicode], [RFC2119], [RFC4513],
+ [RFC4512], and [RFC4510] and updated the UTF-8 reference. Replaced
+ RFC 822 reference with a reference to RFC 4234.
+
+ "Informative References" section: (new section) moved [X.690] to this
+ section. Added a reference to [RFC4516].
+
+ "Acknowledgements" section: added.
+
+ "Appendix A: Changes Since RFC 2254" section: added.
+
+ Surrounded the names of all ABNF productions with "<" and ">" where
+ they are used in descriptive text.
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 10]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+ Replaced all occurrences of "LDAPv3" with "LDAP."
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Mark Smith, Editor
+ Pearl Crescent, LLC
+ 447 Marlpool Dr.
+ Saline, MI 48176
+ USA
+
+ Phone: +1 734 944-2856
+ EMail: mcs@pearlcrescent.com
+
+
+ Tim Howes
+ Opsware, Inc.
+ 599 N. Mathilda Ave.
+ Sunnyvale, CA 94085
+ USA
+
+ Phone: +1 408 744-7509
+ EMail: howes@opsware.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 11]
+
+RFC 4515 LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters June 2006
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+ This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+ contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+ retain all their rights.
+
+ This document and the information contained herein 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 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.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+ Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Smith and Howes Standards Track [Page 12]
+
Propchange: websites/production/directory/content/studio/users-guide/2.0.0.v20180908-M14/ldap_browser/rfc/rfc4515.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
svn:eol-style = native