Network Working Group M. Wahl Request for Comments: DRAFT Sun Microsystems, Inc. Expires: January 2001 July 2000 Development Plan for Reissuing Existing LDAPv3 RFCs In CY2001 1. Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Discussion of this document should take place on the LDAP Extensions Working Group mailing list . Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 2. Abstract The IESG prefers to avoid having RFCs linger in Proposed Standard Status. In general, RFCs which have demonstratable interoperability and usefulness should become Draft Standards, and eventually may become full Standards, as described in RFC 2026 [1] section 6.2. When a Proposed Standard RFC is reissued to become Draft, corrections, clarifications and other changes can be integrated into the update. However, if changes to the protocol are 'very significant', then the document needs to be issued as Proposed Standard again. This document describes an approach to reissue the core RFCs which describe LDAPv3, all of which are currently at Proposed Standard status. It also summarizes the status of other existing and upcoming standards-track LDAP RFCs. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 3. Goal The primary goal of this process is to resolve issues in the existing LDAPv3 RFCs, while encouraging it to progress towards full standard status, and allow for subsequent extension as needed. This document describes the portion of this process which should occur to cause the core LDAPv3 RFCs, in particular RFC 2251 through RFC 2256, to be republished in CY2001. (This would mean the Internet Drafts need to be published in CY2000 to give the IESG time to review them). This document does not provide information on progressing drafts which have not yet been published as RFCs, or on plans for dealing with documents which will become RFCs in CY2002 and later, except as they impact the formation of the update drafts. 4. General Issues The requirements of RFC 2360 [2] should be reviewed to ensure that any new internet drafts are in alignment with best current practice. 4.1. Technical Corrections Several errors have been found in RFCs 2251-2256 during implementation and interoperability testing which need to be corrected. 4.2. Enhancements The LDAPv3 protocol definition needs to be suitable for extension to meet the needs of current and anticipated protocol and schema extension RFCs. For example, it is currently only possible to return partial response PDUs for search. 4.3. Textual Changes There are several aspects of LDAPv3 which are underdocumented, including the relationship of its data model to X.501, the semantics of the result codes, and the meanings of some of the user attribute types. There are also no examples of the LDAPv3 protocol encodings. These issues should be resolved in the document updates. 4.4. Other changes There have been numerous affiliation changes. Also, the boilerplate for RFCs has changed. Finally, because of the publication of the secure authentication methods, the IESG note is no longer needed to be included. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 4.5. Interdependency RFCs 2251-2256 all reference each other. Prior to publication of updates to one or more of them as draft standards, the dependent text and definitions should be carefully reviewed to ensure that subsequent changes to the other documents would not cause problems. 4.6. External dependencies The following documents are referenced by LDAPv3 specifications but have not reached Draft Standard status. Several of them are no longer under consideration by any current IETF working group. In addition RFC 2831 includes several references which are not listed here. 4.6.1. RFC 1278 A String Encoding of Presentation Address This RFC was published in 1991 and is Informational. 4.6.2. RFC 1738 Uniform Resource Locators This RFC was published in 1994 and is a Proposed Standard. 4.6.3. RFC 1766 Tags for the Identification of Languages This RFC was published in 1995 and is a Proposed Standard. 4.6.4. RFC 1866 Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 This RFC was published in 1995 and is Historic. 4.6.5. RFC 2156 MIXER This RFC was published in 1998 and is a Proposed Standard. 4.6.6. RFC 2222 Simple Authentication and Security Layer This RFC was published in 1997 and is a Proposed Standard. 4.6.7. RFC 2234 Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications This RFC was published in 1997 and is a Proposed Standard. 4.6.8. RFC 2246 TLS Protocol Version 1.0 This RFC was published in 1999 and is a Proposed Standard. 4.6.9. RFC 2401 Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol This RFC was published in 1998 and is a Proposed Standard. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 5. Process By RFC Many Obsolete, Experimental, Informational RFCs, and those which apply only to non-LDAP protocols, are not listed. 5.1. RFCs published prior to LDAPv3 5.1.1. RFC 1274 COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema This RFC is at Proposed Standard status. It has been partially replaced by RFC 2256, which borrowed its schema definitions for X.500 attributes. However, many schema definitions remain in this document, and are used by RFC 2798. A new document should update or replace RFC 1274, however there is currently no work item for this activity. 5.1.2. RFC 1777 LDAPv2 This RFC is at Draft Standard status. It is anticipated that the next revision of the LDAPv3 protocol RFCs will obsolete the LDAPv2 protocol. 5.1.3. RFC 1778 String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes This RFC is at Draft Standard status, and is updated by RFC 2559. It is anticipated that the next revision of the LDAPv3 schema and syntax RFCs will obsolete the LDAPv2 syntaxes. 5.1.4. RFC 1781 Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly Naming This RFC, published in 1995, is at Proposed Standard status. There is no known work item to update this document. 5.1.5. RFC 1798 Connectionless Lightweight X.500 Directory Access Protocol This RFC, published in 1995, is at Proposed Standard status. There is a work item of LDAPEXT to produce a replacement document, which would initially be a Proposed Standard as it incorporates several new requirements. 5.1.6. RFC 1823 LDAP API This RFC, published in 1995, is Informational. There is a work item of LDAPEXT to produce a replacement document, which would initially be a Proposed Standard as it incorporates several new requirements. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 5.1.7. RFC 2079 Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers This RFC, published in 1997, is at Proposed Standard status. It is used by RFC 2798. The attribute labeledURI defined by this document is widely used. This document needs to be updated to reformat its attribute definition to be in line with LDAPv3 schema, and to update its references section. Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 1738 PS - RFC 1866 Historic This document has an active editor (Mark Smith). CY2000/2001 Tasks/responsible party: - reissue I-D with clarifications (Authors) - review on LDAPEXT mailing list (All) - provide interoperability report (LDAPEXT WG Chair) - IETF-wide review (All) - IESG approval (Area Directors) 5.1.8. RFC 2164 Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to support MIXER address mapping This RFC, published in 1998, is at Proposed Standard status. It is a schema definition. 5.2. RFCs published with LDAPv3 core 5.2.1. RFC 2247 Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished Names It is currently a Proposed Standard and the eventual goal is to become a full Standard. There are no known issues that would prevent it from being reissued and progressed as a Draft Standard. Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 1034 S - RFC 2253 PS - RFC 2256 PS This document has an active editor (Steve Kille) and several co-authors. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 CY2000/2001 Tasks/responsible party: - reissue I-D with updated affiliations (Authors) - review on LDAPEXT mailing list (All) - provide interoperability report (LDAPEXT WG Chair) - IETF-wide review (All) - IESG approval (Area Directors) 5.2.2. RFC 2251 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3) It is currently a Proposed Standard and the eventual goal is to become a full Standard. This document has several known issues. Revising this draft will likely cause it to remain at Proposed Standard in CY2001. The change list will be included in future revisions of this draft. Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 1777 DS - RFC 2253 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 2252 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 1738 PS [URL] - RFC 2255 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 2119 BCP - RFC 2222 PS [SASL] - RFC 2044 I Obsoleted by RFC 2279 DS This document has an active editor (Mark Wahl) and has several co-authors. CY2000/2001 Tasks/responsible party: - reissue I-D with corrections (Authors) - review on LDAPEXT mailing list (All) - IETF-wide review (All) - IESG approval (Area Directors) 5.2.3. RFC 2252 Attribute Syntax Definitions It is currently a Proposed Standard and the eventual goal is to become a full Standard. This document has several known issues. Revising this draft will likely cause it to remain at Proposed Standard in CY2001. The change list will be included in future revisions of this draft. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 6] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 2251 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 2119 BCP - RFC 2253 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 1278 I [PADDR] - RFC 2044 I Obsoleted by RFC 2279 DS - RFC 1327 PS Obsoleted by RFC 2156 PS [MIXER] - RFC 2256 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 822 S This document has an active editor (Mark Wahl) and has several co-authors. CY2000/2001 Tasks/responsible party: - reissue I-D with corrections (Authors) - review on LDAPEXT mailing list (All) - IETF-wide review (All) - IESG approval (Area Directors) 5.2.4. RFC 2253 UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names It is currently a Proposed Standard and the eventual goal is to become a full Standard. This document has several known issues. Revising this draft will likely cause it to remain at Proposed Standard in CY2001. The change list will be included in future revisions of this draft. Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 2251 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 2252 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 822 S - RFC 2119 BCP This document has an active editor (Mark Wahl) and has several co-authors. CY2000/2001 Tasks/responsible party: - reissue I-D with corrections (Authors) - review on LDAPEXT mailing list (All) - IETF-wide review (All) - IESG approval (Area Directors) 5.2.5. RFC 2254 The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters It is currently a Proposed Standard and the eventual goal is to become a full Standard. There are clarifications needed but no known issues that would prevent it from being progressed as a Draft Standard. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 7] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 2251 PS *interdependent* - RFC 2252 PS *interdependent* - RFC 2044 I Obsoleted by RFC 2279 DS - RFC 822 S This document was previously edited by Tim Howes and is now edited by Mark Smith. CY2000/2001 Tasks/responsible party: - reissue I-D with clarifications (Authors) - review on LDAPEXT mailing list (All) - provide interoperability report (LDAPEXT WG Chair) - IETF-wide review (All) - IESG approval (Area Directors) 5.2.6. RFC 2255 The LDAP URL Format It is currently a Proposed Standard and the eventual goal is to become a full Standard. There are clarifications needed but no known issues that would prevent it from being progressed as a Draft Standard. Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 2253 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 2251 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 2252 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 2254 PS - RFC 1738 PS [URL] - RFC 2119 BCP This document was previously edited by Tim Howes and is now edited by Mark Smith. CY2000/2001 Tasks/responsible party: - reissue I-D with clarifications (Authors) - review on LDAPEXT mailing list (All) - provide interoperability report (LDAPEXT WG Chair) - IETF-wide review (All) - IESG approval (Area Directors) 5.2.7. RFC 2256 A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use with LDAPv3 It is currently a Proposed Standard and the eventual goal is to become a full Standard. There are clarifications needed but no known issues that would prevent it from being progressed as a Draft Standard. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 8] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 2252 PS *Interdependent* - RFC 2119 BCP This document has an active editor (Mark Wahl) and has several co-authors. CY2000/2001 Tasks/responsible party: - reissue I-D with clarifications (Authors) - review on LDAPEXT mailing list (All) - provide interoperability report (LDAPEXT WG Chair) - IETF-wide review (All) - IESG approval (Area Directors) 5.3. RFCs published after the LDAPv3 core and before CY2000 RFCs 2293, 2294 and 2307 were published in March 1998, and contain schema definitions. RFCs 2559 and RFC 2587 were published in 1999 and make use of LDAPv2 for PKI. There is a work item of the PKIX working group to replace them with a definition based on LDAPv3. 5.3.1. RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP This RFC was published in May 1999. It is currently a Proposed Standard and the eventual goal is to become a full Standard. There are no known issues that would prevent it from being progressed as a Draft Standard. Its RFC dependencies are: - RFC 2251 PS - RFC 2252 PS - RFC 1766 PS - RFC 2119 BCP This document is has an active editor (Mark Wahl) and one co-author. 5.4. RFCs published during CY2000 RFC 2026 states that a specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at least six (6) months, measured from the date of RFC publication. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 9] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 The RFCs published in the first half of 2000 include: - RFC 2739 PS [Calendar] - RFC 2798 I [Inetorgperson] - RFC 2820 I [ACL Requirements] - RFC 2829 PS [Authmeth] - RFC 2830 PS [TLS] - RFC 2849 PS [LDIF] Later revisions of this document will include more information on the revision plans for these RFCs. 6. Current Internet Drafts affecting the core definition 6.1. Replication Changes and clarifications to the protocol and client-visible service model needed by the replication activity in the LDUP working group will be integrated into the updates to 2251. The replication protocol itself is being published independently, using the extension framework. 6.2. Access Control Model This is a work item of LDAPEXT. It is anticipated that an RFC will be published in CY2001. There will be impact on the core data model definitions, and possibly the protocol as well. 6.3. Applicability Statement As there are increasingly more RFCs which form the LDAPv3 core and extensions, an applicability statement is needed to define how and in what situations the technical specifications are used. 6.4. Result Codes and partial response Drafts have been produced which includes updates to the LDAPv3 protocol, whose contents will be integrated into the next update to the LDAPv3 protocol. The result codes draft has been reviewed by the LDAPEXT working group. 6.5. Data Model Definitions The relationship of the LDAPv3 data model to that of X.501(1993) is underspecified in RFC 2251. Also, it is difficult to implement LDAPv3 without a copy of the (non-freely-available) X.501 specification. This new document includes definitions of the key terms used in the LDAP protocol and their relationships to those of X.501(1993). This will allow the protocol document to focus on the protocol definition itself. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 10] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 7. Other Drafts There are several working groups currently defining schemas for use in LDAPv3 directories. There are also numerous individual submissions of protocol extensions. 8. Security Considerations Security Considerations are not discussed in this memo. This document is not intended to become an RFC. 9. Bibliography [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, October 1996. [2] Scott, G., "Guide for Internet Standards Writers", RFC 2360, June 1998. 10. Author's Address Mark Wahl Sun Microsystems, Inc. 8911 Capital of Texas Hwy Suite 4140 Austin TX 78759 USA 11. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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. Wahl Expires: January 2001 [Page 11] INTERNET-DRAFT LDAPv3 Existing RFC Development Plan July 2000 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 Expires: January 2001 [Page 12]