Network Working Group                                            S. Legg
Request for Comments: 4522                                       eB2Bcom
Category: Standards Track                                      June 2006


            Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
                      The Binary Encoding Option

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

  Each attribute stored in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
  (LDAP) directory has a defined syntax (i.e., data type).  A syntax
  definition specifies how attribute values conforming to the syntax
  are normally represented when transferred in LDAP operations.  This
  representation is referred to as the LDAP-specific encoding to
  distinguish it from other methods of encoding attribute values.  This
  document defines an attribute option, the binary option, that can be
  used to specify that the associated attribute values are instead
  encoded according to the Basic Encoding Rules (BER) used by X.500
  directories.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................2
  2. Conventions .....................................................2
  3. The Binary Option ...............................................2
  4. Syntaxes Requiring Binary Transfer ..............................3
  5. Attributes Returned in a Search .................................4
  6. All User Attributes .............................................4
  7. Conflicting Requests ............................................5
  8. Security Considerations .........................................5
  9. IANA Considerations .............................................5
  10. References .....................................................5
     10.1. Normative References ......................................5
     10.2. Informative References ....................................6




Legg                        Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4522            LDAP: The Binary Encoding Option           June 2006


1.  Introduction

  Each attribute stored in a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
  (LDAP) directory [RFC4510] has a defined syntax (i.e., data type)
  which constrains the structure and format of its values.

  The description of each syntax [RFC4517] specifies how attribute or
  assertion values [RFC4512] conforming to the syntax are normally
  represented when transferred in LDAP operations [RFC4511].  This
  representation is referred to as the LDAP-specific encoding to
  distinguish it from other methods of encoding attribute values.

  This document defines an attribute option, the binary option, which
  can be used in an attribute description [RFC4512] in an LDAP
  operation to specify that the associated attribute values or
  assertion values are, or are requested to be, encoded according to
  the Basic Encoding Rules (BER) [BER] as used by X.500 [X.500]
  directories, instead of the usual LDAP-specific encoding.

  The binary option was originally defined in RFC 2251 [RFC2251].  The
  LDAP technical specification [RFC4510] has obsoleted the previously
  defined LDAP technical specification [RFC3377], which included RFC
  2251.  The binary option was not included in the revised LDAP
  technical specification for a variety of reasons including
  implementation inconsistencies.  No attempt is made here to resolve
  the known inconsistencies.

  This document reintroduces the binary option for use with certain
  attribute syntaxes, such as certificate syntax [RFC4523], that
  specifically require it.  No attempt has been made to address use of
  the binary option with attributes of syntaxes that do not require its
  use.  Unless addressed in a future specification, this use is to be
  avoided.

2.  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, RFC 2119
  [BCP14].

3.  The Binary Option

  The binary option is indicated with the attribute option string
  "binary" in an attribute description.  Note that, like all attribute
  options, the string representing the binary option is case
  insensitive.




Legg                        Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4522            LDAP: The Binary Encoding Option           June 2006


  Where the binary option is present in an attribute description, the
  associated attribute values or assertion values MUST be BER encoded
  (otherwise the values are encoded according to the LDAP-specific
  encoding [RFC4517] for the attribute's syntax).  Note that it is
  possible for a syntax to be defined such that its LDAP-specific
  encoding is exactly the same as its BER encoding.

  In terms of the protocol [RFC4511], the binary option specifies that
  the contents octets of the associated AttributeValue or
  AssertionValue OCTET STRING are a complete BER encoding of the
  relevant value.

  The binary option is not a tagging option [RFC4512], so the presence
  of the binary option does not specify an attribute subtype.  An
  attribute description containing the binary option references exactly
  the same attribute as the attribute description without the binary
  option.  The supertype/subtype relationships of attributes with
  tagging options are not altered in any way by the presence or absence
  of the binary option.

  An attribute description SHALL be treated as unrecognized if it
  contains the binary option and the syntax of the attribute does not
  have an associated ASN.1 type [RFC4517], or the BER encoding of
  values of that type is not supported.

  The presence or absence of the binary option only affects the
  transfer of attribute and assertion values in the protocol; servers
  store any particular attribute value in a format of their choosing.

4.  Syntaxes Requiring Binary Transfer

  The attribute values of certain attribute syntaxes are defined
  without an LDAP-specific encoding and are required to be transferred
  in the BER-encoded form.  For the purposes of this document, these
  syntaxes are said to have a binary transfer requirement.  The
  certificate, certificate list, certificate pair, and supported
  algorithm syntaxes [RFC4523] are examples of syntaxes with a binary
  transfer requirement.  These syntaxes also have an additional
  requirement that the exact BER encoding must be preserved.  Note that
  this is a property of the syntaxes themselves, and not a property of
  the binary option.  In the absence of this requirement, LDAP clients
  would need to re-encode values using the Distinguished Encoding Rules
  (DER).








Legg                        Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4522            LDAP: The Binary Encoding Option           June 2006


5.  Attributes Returned in a Search

  An LDAP search request [RFC4511] contains a list of the attributes
  (the requested attributes list) to be returned from each entry
  matching the search filter.  An attribute description in the
  requested attributes list also implicitly requests all subtypes of
  the attribute type in the attribute description, whether through
  attribute subtyping or attribute tagging option subtyping [RFC4512].

  The requested attributes list MAY contain attribute descriptions with
  the binary option, but MUST NOT contain two attribute descriptions
  with the same attribute type and the same tagging options (even if
  only one of them has the binary option).  The binary option in an
  attribute description in the requested attributes list implicitly
  applies to all the subtypes of the attribute type in the attribute
  description (however, see Section 7).

  Attributes of a syntax with the binary transfer requirement, if
  returned, SHALL be returned in the binary form (i.e., with the binary
  option in the attribute description and the associated attribute
  values BER encoded) regardless of whether the binary option was
  present in the request (for the attribute or for one of its
  supertypes).

  Attributes of a syntax without the binary transfer requirement, if
  returned, SHOULD be returned in the form explicitly requested.  That
  is, if the attribute description in the requested attributes list
  contains the binary option, then the corresponding attribute in the
  result SHOULD be in the binary form.  If the attribute description in
  the request does not contain the binary option, then the
  corresponding attribute in the result SHOULD NOT be in the binary
  form.  A server MAY omit an attribute from the result if it does not
  support the requested encoding.

  Regardless of the encoding chosen, a particular attribute value is
  returned at most once.

6.  All User Attributes

  If the list of attributes in a search request is empty or contains
  the special attribute description string "*", then all user
  attributes are requested to be returned.

  Attributes of a syntax with the binary transfer requirement, if
  returned, SHALL be returned in the binary form.






Legg                        Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4522            LDAP: The Binary Encoding Option           June 2006


  Attributes of a syntax without the binary transfer requirement and
  having a defined LDAP-specific encoding SHOULD NOT be returned in the
  binary form.

  Attributes of a syntax without the binary transfer requirement and
  without a defined LDAP-specific encoding may be returned in the
  binary form or omitted from the result.

7.  Conflicting Requests

  A particular attribute could be explicitly requested by an attribute
  description and/or implicitly requested by the attribute descriptions
  of one or more of its supertypes, or by the special attribute
  description string "*".  If the binary option is present in at least
  one, but not all, of these attribute descriptions then the effect of
  the request with respect to binary transfer is implementation
  defined.

8.  Security Considerations

  When interpreting security-sensitive fields, and in particular fields
  used to grant or deny access, implementations MUST ensure that any
  matching rule comparisons are done on the underlying abstract value,
  regardless of the particular encoding used.

9.  IANA Considerations

  The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has updated the LDAP
  attribute description option registry [BCP64] as indicated by the
  following template:

     Subject:
       Request for LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
     Option Name: binary
     Family of Options: NO
     Person & email address to contact for further information:
       Steven Legg <[email protected]>
     Specification: RFC 4522
     Author/Change Controller: IESG

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

  [BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.





Legg                        Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 4522            LDAP: The Binary Encoding Option           June 2006


  [BCP64]    Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
             Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
             Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006.

  [RFC4510]  Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
             (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC RFC 4510,
             June 2006.

  [RFC4511]  Sermersheim, J., "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.

  [RFC4517]  Legg, S., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
             (LDAP):  Syntaxes and Matching Rules", RFC 4517, June
             2006.

  [RFC4523]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
             (LDAP) Schema Definitions for X.509 Certificates", RFC
             4523, June 2006.

  [BER]      ITU-T Recommendation X.690 (07/02) | ISO/IEC 8825-1,
             Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
             Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
             Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
             (DER).

10.2.  Informative References

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

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

  [X.500]    ITU-T Recommendation X.500 (02/01) | ISO/IEC 9594-1:2001,
             Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
             The Directory:  Overview of concepts, models and services










Legg                        Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 4522            LDAP: The Binary Encoding Option           June 2006


Author's Address

  Dr. Steven Legg
  eB2Bcom
  Suite 3, Woodhouse Corporate Centre
  935 Station Street
  Box Hill North, Victoria 3129
  AUSTRALIA

  Phone: +61 3 9896 7830
  Fax:   +61 3 9896 7801
  EMail: [email protected]







































Legg                        Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 4522            LDAP: The Binary Encoding Option           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
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
  Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Legg                        Standards Track                     [Page 8]