Network Working Group                                        K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 4528                           OpenLDAP Foundation
Category: Standards Track                                      June 2006


             Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
                          Assertion Control


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

  This document defines the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
  (LDAP) Assertion Control, which allows a client to specify that a
  directory operation should only be processed if an assertion applied
  to the target entry of the operation is true.  It can be used to
  construct "test and set", "test and clear", and other conditional
  operations.

Table of Contents

  1. Overview ........................................................2
  2. Terminology .....................................................2
  3. The Assertion Control ...........................................2
  4. Security Considerations .........................................3
  5. IANA Considerations .............................................4
     5.1. Object Identifier ..........................................4
     5.2. LDAP Protocol Mechanism ....................................4
     5.3. LDAP Result Code ...........................................4
  6. Acknowledgements ................................................5
  7. References ......................................................5
     7.1. Normative References .......................................5
     7.2. Informative References .....................................5







Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4528                 LDAP Assertion Control                June 2006


1.  Overview

  This document defines the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
  (LDAP) [RFC4510] assertion control.  The assertion control allows the
  client to specify a condition that must be true for the operation to
  be processed normally.  Otherwise, the operation is not performed.
  For instance, the control can be used with the Modify operation
  [RFC4511] to perform atomic "test and set" and "test and clear"
  operations.

  The control may be attached to any update operation to support
  conditional addition, deletion, modification, and renaming of the
  target object.  The asserted condition is evaluated as an integral
  part the operation.

  The control may also be used with the search operation.  Here, the
  assertion is applied to the base object of the search before
  searching for objects that match the search scope and filter.

  The control may also be used with the compare operation.  Here, it
  extends the compare operation to allow a more complex assertion.

2. Terminology

  Protocol elements are described using ASN.1 [X.680] with implicit
  tags.  The term "BER-encoded" means the element is to be encoded
  using the Basic Encoding Rules [X.690] under the restrictions
  detailed in Section 5.1 of [RFC4511].

  DSA stands for Directory System Agent (or server).
  DSE stands for DSA-specific Entry.

  In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
  "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
  and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
  [RFC2119].

3.  The Assertion Control

  The assertion control is an LDAP Control [RFC4511] whose controlType
  is 1.3.6.1.1.12 and whose controlValue is a BER-encoded Filter
  [Protocol, Section 4.5.1].  The criticality may be TRUE or FALSE.
  There is no corresponding response control.

  The control is appropriate for both LDAP interrogation and update
  operations [RFC4511], including Add, Compare, Delete, Modify,
  ModifyDN (rename), and Search.  It is inappropriate for Abandon,
  Bind, Unbind, and StartTLS operations.



Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4528                 LDAP Assertion Control                June 2006


  When the control is attached to an LDAP request, the processing of
  the request is conditional on the evaluation of the Filter as applied
  against the target of the operation.  If the Filter evaluates to
  TRUE, then the request is processed normally.  If the Filter
  evaluates to FALSE or Undefined, then assertionFailed (122)
  resultCode is returned, and no further processing is performed.

  For Add, Compare, and ModifyDN operations, the target is indicated by
  the entry field in the request.  For Modify operations, the target is
  indicated by the object field.  For Delete operations, the target is
  indicated by the DelRequest type.  For Compare operations and all
  update operations, the evaluation of the assertion MUST be performed
  as an integral part of the operation.  That is, the evaluation of the
  assertion and the normal processing of the operation SHALL be done as
  one atomic action.

  For Search operations, the target is indicated by the baseObject
  field, and the evaluation is done after "finding" but before
  "searching" [RFC4511].  Hence, no entries or continuations references
  are returned if the assertion fails.

  Servers implementing this technical specification SHOULD publish the
  object identifier 1.3.6.1.1.12 as a value of the 'supportedControl'
  attribute [RFC4512] in their root DSE.  A server MAY choose to
  advertise this extension only when the client is authorized to use
  it.

  Other documents may specify how this control applies to other LDAP
  operations.  In doing so, they must state how the target entry is
  determined.

4.  Security Considerations

  The filter may, like other components of the request, contain
  sensitive information.  When it does, this information should be
  appropriately protected.

  As with any general assertion mechanism, the mechanism can be used to
  determine directory content.  Hence, this mechanism SHOULD be subject
  to appropriate access controls.

  Some assertions may be very complex, requiring significant time and
  resources to evaluate.  Hence, this mechanism SHOULD be subject to
  appropriate administrative controls.







Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4528                 LDAP Assertion Control                June 2006


  Security considerations for the base operations [RFC4511] extended by
  this control, as well as general LDAP security considerations
  [RFC4510], generally apply to implementation and use of this
  extension.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  Object Identifier

  The IANA has assigned an LDAP Object Identifier [RFC4520] to identify
  the LDAP Assertion Control defined in this document.

      Subject: Request for LDAP Object Identifier Registration
      Person & email address to contact for further information:
          Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]>
      Specification: RFC 4528
      Author/Change Controller: IESG
      Comments:
          Identifies the LDAP Assertion Control

5.2.  LDAP Protocol Mechanism

  Registration of this protocol mechanism [RFC4520] is requested.

      Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
      Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.1.12
      Description: Assertion Control
      Person & email address to contact for further information:
          Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]>
      Usage: Control
      Specification: RFC 4528
      Author/Change Controller: IESG
      Comments: none

5.3.  LDAP Result Code

  The IANA has assigned an LDAP Result Code [RFC4520] called
  'assertionFailed' (122).

      Subject: LDAP Result Code Registration
      Person & email address to contact for further information:
          Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]>
      Result Code Name: assertionFailed
      Specification: RFC 4528
      Author/Change Controller: IESG
      Comments:  none





Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4528                 LDAP Assertion Control                June 2006


6.  Acknowledgements

  The assertion control concept is attributed to Morteza Ansari.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

  [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.

  [X.680]       International Telecommunication Union -
                Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "Abstract
                Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification of Basic
                Notation", X.680(2002) (also ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002).

  [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(2002) (also
                ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002).

7.2.  Informative References

  [RFC4520]     Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
                (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory
                Access Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006.

Author's Address

  Kurt D. Zeilenga
  OpenLDAP Foundation

  EMail: [email protected]





Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 4528                 LDAP Assertion Control                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).







Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 6]