Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
RFC 1777
Document | Type |
RFC - Historic
(March 1995; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 3494
Obsoletes RFC 1487
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Tim Howes , Steve Kille , Wengyik Yeong | ||
Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
This information refers to IESG processing after the RFC was initially published: | |||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 1777 (Historic) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Patrik Fältström | ||
Send notices to | <pcalhoun@bstormnetworks.com> |
Network Working Group W. Yeong Request for Comments: 1777 Performance Systems International Obsoletes: 1487 T. Howes Category: Standards Track University of Michigan S. Kille ISODE Consortium March 1995 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 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. Abstract The protocol described in this document is designed to provide access to the X.500 Directory while not incurring the resource requirements of the Directory Access Protocol (DAP). This protocol is specifically targeted at simple management applications and browser applications that provide simple read/write interactive access to the X.500 Directory, and is intended to be a complement to the DAP itself. Key aspects of LDAP are: - Protocol elements are carried directly over TCP or other transport, bypassing much of the session/presentation overhead. - Many protocol data elements are encoding as ordinary strings (e.g., Distinguished Names). - A lightweight BER encoding is used to encode all protocol elements. 1. History The tremendous interest in X.500 [1,2] technology in the Internet has lead to efforts to reduce the high "cost of entry" associated with use of the technology, such as the Directory Assistance Service [3] and DIXIE [4]. While efforts such as these have met with success, they have been solutions based on particular implementations and as such have limited applicability. This document continues the efforts to define Directory protocol alternatives but departs from previous efforts in that it consciously avoids dependence on particular Yeong, Howes & Kille [Page 1] RFC 1777 LDAP March 1995 implementations. 2. Protocol Model The general model adopted by this protocol is one of clients performing protocol operations against servers. In this model, this is accomplished by a client transmitting a protocol request describing the operation to be performed to a server, which is then responsible for performing the necessary operations on the Directory. Upon completion of the necessary operations, the server returns a response containing any results or errors to the requesting client. In keeping with the goal of easing the costs associated with use of the Directory, it is an objective of this protocol to minimize the complexity of clients so as to facilitate widespread deployment of applications capable of utilizing the Directory. Note that, although servers are required to return responses whenever such responses are defined in the protocol, there is no requirement for synchronous behavior on the part of either client or server implementations: requests and responses for multiple operations may be exchanged by client and servers in any order, as long as clients eventually receive a response for every request that requires one. Consistent with the model of servers performing protocol operations on behalf of clients, it is also to be noted that protocol servers are expected to handle referrals without resorting to the return of such referrals to the client. This protocol makes no provisions for the return of referrals to clients, as the model is one of servers ensuring the performance of all necessary operations in the Directory, with only final results or errors being returned by servers to clients. Note that this protocol can be mapped to a strict subset of the directory abstract service, so it can be cleanly provided by the DAP. 3. Mapping Onto Transport Services This protocol is designed to run over connection-oriented, reliable transports, with all 8 bits in an octet being significant in the data stream. Specifications for two underlying services are defined here, though others are also possible. 3.1. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) The LDAPMessage PDUs are mapped directly onto the TCP bytestream. Server implementations running over the TCP should provide a protocol listener on port 389. Yeong, Howes & Kille [Page 2] RFC 1777 LDAP March 1995 3.2. Connection Oriented Transport Service (COTS)Show full document text