Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 3352

Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) to Historic Status

Pages: 4
Informational
Obsoletes:  1798

ToP   noToC   RFC3352 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                        K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 3352                           OpenLDAP Foundation
Obsoletes: 1798                                               March 2003
Category: Informational


     Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP)
                           to Historic Status


Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

The Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) technical specification, RFC 1798, was published in 1995 as a Proposed Standard. This document discusses the reasons why the CLDAP technical specification has not been furthered on the Standard Track. This document recommends that RFC 1798 be moved to Historic status.

1. Background

Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) [RFC1798] was published in 1995 as a Proposed Standard. The protocol was targeted at applications which require lookup of small amounts of information held in the directory. The protocol avoids the overhead of establishing (and closing) a connection and the session bind and unbind operations needed in connection-oriented directory access protocols. The CLDAP was designed to complement version 2 of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAPv2) [RFC1777], now Historic [HISTORIC]. In the seven years since its publication, CLDAP has not become widely deployed on the Internet. There are a number of probable reasons for this: - Limited functionality: + anonymous only, + read only, + small result sizes only, and
ToP   noToC   RFC3352 - Page 2
   - Insufficient security capabilities:
        + no integrity protection,
        + no confidentiality protection
   - Inadequate internationalization support;
   - Insufficient extensibility; and
   - Lack of multiple independently developed implementations.

   The CLDAP technical specification has normative references to
   multiple obsolete technical specifications including X.501(88),
   X.511(88), RFC 1487 (the predecessor to RFC 1777, the now Historic
   LDAPv2 technical specification).  Unless the technical specification
   were to be updated, CLDAP cannot remain on the standards track
   because of the Normative reference to a Historic RFC.

   The community recognized in the mid-1990s that CLDAP needed to be
   updated.  In response to this, the IETF chartered the LDAP Extensions
   Working Group (LDAPext WG) in 1997 to undertake this update.  The
   LDAPext WG is concluding without producing an update to CLDAP.
   Currently, there is no standardization effort to update CLDAP.

   It should be noted that the community still has interest in
   developing a "connection-less" directory access protocol.  However,
   based on operational experience, has determined that further
   experimentation is necessary to address outstanding technical issues.
   In particular, security considerations associated with
   "connection-less" services need to be addressed.

2. Recommendation

As there is no viable standardization effort to update CLDAP as necessary to keep it on the standards track and the community currently considers this an area requiring further experimentation, RFC 1798 must be moved to Historic status. It is recommended that those interested in connection-less access to X.500-based directory services experiment with [LDAPUDP] and other alternatives which might become available.

3. Security Considerations

The security of the Internet will not be impacted by the retirement of CLDAP.

4. Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank the designers of CLDAP for their contribution to the Internet community.
ToP   noToC   RFC3352 - Page 3

5. Normative References

[HISTORIC] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol version 2 (LDAPv2) to Historic Status", RFC 3494, February 2003. [CLDAP] Young, A. "Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol," RFC 1798, June 1995.

6. Informative References

[LDAPUDP] Johansson, L. and R. Hedberg, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol over UDP/IP," Work in Progress. [RFC1777] Yeong, W., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995. [RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002. [X501] The Directory: Models. CCITT Recommendation X.501 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21; International Standard 9594-2, 1988. [X511] The Directory: Abstract Service Definition. CCITT Recommendation X.511, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21; International Standard 9594-3, 1988.

7. Author's Address

Kurt D. Zeilenga OpenLDAP Foundation EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
ToP   noToC   RFC3352 - Page 4

8. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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. 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.