Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                        K. ZeilengaRequest for Comments: 3352                           OpenLDAP FoundationObsoletes:1798                                               March 2003Category: InformationalConnection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP)to Historic StatusStatus 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 thatRFC 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, andZeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3352                CLDAP to Historic Status              March 2003   - 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 toRFC 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.Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 3352                CLDAP to Historic Status              March 20035. 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.orgZeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 3352                CLDAP to Historic Status              March 20038.  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.Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 4]