Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                       J. StrassnerRequest for Comments: 3703                        Intelliden CorporationCategory: Standards Track                                       B. Moore                                                         IBM Corporation                                                                R. Moats                                                    Lemur Networks, Inc.                                                             E. Ellesson                                                           February 2004Policy Core Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) SchemaStatus 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 (2004).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   This document defines a mapping of the Policy Core Information Model   to a form that can be implemented in a directory that uses   Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) as its access protocol.   This model defines two hierarchies of object classes: structural   classes representing information for representing and controlling   policy data as specified inRFC 3060, and relationship classes that   indicate how instances of the structural classes are related to each   other.  Classes are also added to the LDAP schema to improve the   performance of a client's interactions with an LDAP server when the   client is retrieving large amounts of policy-related information.   These classes exist only to optimize LDAP retrievals: there are no   classes in the information model that correspond to them.Table of Contents1.  Introduction .................................................22.  The Policy Core Information Model ............................43.  Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS ...........................54.  General Discussion of Mapping the Information Model to LDAP ..64.1.  Summary of Class and Association Mappings ..............7       4.2.  Usage of DIT Content and Structure Rules and Name Forms.  94.3.  Naming Attributes in the PCLS ..........................10Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 20044.4.  Rule-Specific and Reusable Conditions and Actions ......11       4.5.  Location and Retrieval of Policy Objects in the             Directory ..............................................164.5.1.  Aliases and Other DIT-Optimization Techniques ..195.  Class Definitions ............................................195.1.  The Abstract Class "pcimPolicy" ........................215.2.  The Three Policy Group Classes .........................225.3.  The Three Policy Rule Classes ..........................235.4.  The Class pcimRuleConditionAssociation .................305.5.  The Class pcimRuleValidityAssociation ..................325.6.  The Class pcimRuleActionAssociation ....................345.7.  The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionAuxClass ..............365.8.  The Auxiliary Class pcimTPCAuxClass ....................365.9.  The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionVendorAuxClass ........405.10. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionAuxClass .................415.11. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionVendorAuxClass ...........425.12. The Class pcimPolicyInstance ...........................435.13. The Auxiliary Class pcimElementAuxClass ................445.14. The Three Policy Repository Classes ....................455.15. The Auxiliary Class pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass ............465.16. The Auxiliary Class pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass .......485.17. The Auxiliary Class pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass ........496.  Extending the Classes Defined in This Document ...............50       6.1.  Subclassing pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass 506.2.  Using the Vendor Policy Attributes .....................506.3.  Using Time Validity Periods ............................517.  Security Considerations ......................................518.  IANA Considerations ..........................................538.1.  Object Identifiers .....................................538.2.  Object Identifier Descriptors ..........................539.  Acknowledgments ..............................................5610. Appendix:  Constructing the Value of orderedCIMKeys ..........5711. References ...................................................5811.1. Normative References ...................................5811.2. Informative References .................................5912. Authors' Addresses ...........................................6013. Full Copyright Statement .....................................611.  Introduction   This document takes as its starting point the object-oriented   information model for representing information for representing and   controlling policy data as specified in [1].  Lightweight Directory   Access Protocol (LDAP) [2] implementers, please note that the use of   the term "policy" in this document does not refer to the use of the   term "policy" as defined in X.501 [4].  Rather, the use of the term   "policy" throughout this document is defined as follows:Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004      Policy is defined as a set of rules to administer, manage, and      control access to network resources.   This work is currently under joint development in the IETF's Policy   Framework working group and in the Policy working group of the   Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF).  This model defines two   hierarchies of object classes: structural classes representing policy   information and control of policies, and relationship classes that   indicate how instances of the structural classes are related to each   other.  In general, both of these class hierarchies will need to be   mapped to a particular data store.   This document defines the mapping of these information model classes   to a directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol.  Two types of   mappings are involved:      -  For the structural classes in the information model, the         mapping is basically one-for-one: information model classes map         to LDAP classes, information model properties map to LDAP         attributes.      -  For the relationship classes in the information model,         different mappings are possible.  In this document, the Policy         Core Information Model's (PCIM's) relationship classes and         their properties are mapped in three ways: to LDAP auxiliary         classes, to attributes representing distinguished name (DN)         references, and to superior-subordinate relationships in the         Directory Information Tree (DIT).   Implementations that use an LDAP directory as their policy repository   and want to implement policy information according toRFC 3060 [1]   SHALL use the LDAP schema defined in this document, or a schema that   subclasses from the schema defined in this document.  The use of the   information model defined in reference [1] as the starting point   enables the inheritance and the relationship class hierarchies to be   extensible, such that other types of policy repositories, such as   relational databases, can also use this information.   This document fits into the overall framework for representing,   deploying, and managing policies being developed by the Policy   Framework Working Group.   The LDAP schema described in this document uses the prefix "pcim" to   identify its classes and attributes.  It consists of ten very general   classes: pcimPolicy (an abstract class), three policy group classes   (pcimGroup, pcimGroupAuxClass, and pcimGroupInstance), three policy   rule classes (pcimRule, pcimRuleAuxClass, and pcimRuleInstance), and   three special auxiliary classes (pcimConditionAuxClass,Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   pcimTPCAuxClass, and pcimActionAuxClass).  (Note that the   PolicyTimePeriodCondition auxiliary class defined in [1] would   normally have been named pcimTimePeriodConditionAuxClass, but this   name is too long for some directories.  Therefore, we have   abbreviated this name to be pcimTPCAuxClass).   The mapping for the PCIM classes pcimGroup and pcimRule is designed   to be as flexible as possible.  Three classes are defined for these   two PCIM classes.  First, an abstract superclass is defined that   contains all required properties of each PCIM class.  Then, both an   auxiliary class as well as a structural class are derived from the   abstract superclass.  This provides maximum flexibility for the   developer.   The schema also contains two less general classes:   pcimConditionVendorAuxClass and pcimActionVendorAuxClass.  To achieve   the mapping of the information model's relationships, the schema also   contains two auxiliary classes: pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass and   pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass.  Capturing the distinction between   rule-specific and reusable policy conditions and policy actions   introduces seven other classes: pcimRuleConditionAssociation,   pcimRuleValidityAssociation, pcimRuleActionAssociation,   pcimPolicyInstance, and three policy repository classes   (pcimRepository, pcimRepositoryAuxClass, and pcimRepositoryInstance).   Finally, the schema includes two classes (pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass and   pcimElementAuxClass) for optimizing LDAP retrievals.  In all, the   schema contains 23 classes.   Within the context of this document, the term "PCLS" (Policy Core   LDAP Schema) is used to refer to the LDAP class definitions that this   document contains.  The term "PCIM" refers to classes defined in [1].   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 inRFC 2119 [10].2.  The Policy Core Information Model   This document contains an LDAP schema representing the classes   defined in the companion document "Policy Core Information   Model -- Version 1 Specification" [1].  Other documents may   subsequently be produced, with mappings of this same PCIM to other   storage technologies.  Since the detailed semantics of the PCIM   classes appear only in [1], that document is a prerequisite for   reading and understanding this document.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 20043.  Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS   The following diagram illustrates the class hierarchy for the LDAP   Classes defined in this document:        top         |         +--dlm1ManagedElement (abstract)         |   |         |   +--pcimPolicy (abstract)         |   |   |         |   |   +--pcimGroup (abstract)         |   |   |  |         |   |   |  +--pcimGroupAuxClass (auxiliary)         |   |   |  |         |   |   |  +--pcimGroupInstance (structural)         |   |   |         |   |   +--pcimRule (abstract)         |   |   |  |         |   |   |  +--pcimRuleAuxClass (auxiliary)         |   |   |  |         |   |   |  +--pcimRuleInstance (structural)         |   |   |         |   |   +--pcimRuleConditionAssociation (structural)         |   |   |         |   |   +--pcimRuleValidityAssociation (structural)         |   |   |         |   |   +--pcimRuleActionAssociation (structural)         |   |   |         |   |   +--pcimPolicyInstance (structural)         |   |   |         |   |   +--pcimElementAuxClass (auxiliary)         |   |         |   +--dlm1ManagedSystemElement (abstract)         |       |         |       +--dlm1LogicalElement (abstract)         |           |         |           +--dlm1System (abstract)         |               |         |               +--dlm1AdminDomain (abstract)         |                   |         |                   +--pcimRepository (abstract)         |                      |         |                      +--pcimRepositoryAuxClass (auxiliary)Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004        top         |                      |         |                      +--pcimRepositoryInstance         |                         (structural)         |         +--pcimConditionAuxClass (auxiliary)         |   |         |   +---pcimTPCAuxClass (auxiliary)         |   |         |   +---pcimConditionVendorAuxClass (auxiliary)         |         +--pcimActionAuxClass (auxiliary)         |   |         |   +---pcimActionVendorAuxClass (auxiliary)         |         +--pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass (auxiliary)         |         +--pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass (auxiliary)         |         +--pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass (auxiliary)         Figure 1.  LDAP Class Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS4.  General Discussion of Mapping the Information Model to LDAP   The classes described inSection 5 below contain certain   optimizations for a directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol.   One example of this is the use of auxiliary classes to represent some   of the associations defined in the information model.  Other data   stores might need to implement these associations differently.  A   second example is the introduction of classes specifically designed   to optimize retrieval of large amounts of policy-related data from a   directory.  This section discusses some general topics related to the   mapping from the information model to LDAP.   The remainder of this section will discuss the following topics.Section 4.1 will discuss the strategy used in mapping the classes and   associations defined in [1] to a form that can be represented in a   directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol.Section 4.2   discusses DIT content and structure rules, as well as name forms.Section 4.3 describes the strategy used in defining naming attributes   for the schema described inSection 5 of this document.Section 4.4   defines the strategy recommended for locating and retrieving   PCIM-derived objects in the directory.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 20044.1.  Summary of Class and Association Mappings   Fifteen of the classes in the PCLS come directly from the nine   corresponding classes in the information model.  Note that names of   classes begin with an upper case character in the information model   (although for CIM in particular, case is not significant in class and   property names), but with a lower case character in LDAP.  This is   because although LDAP doesn't care, X.500 doesn't allow class names   to begin with an uppercase character.  Note also that the prefix   "pcim" is used to identify these LDAP classes.      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | Information Model         | LDAP Class(es)                |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | Policy                    | pcimPolicy                    |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | PolicyGroup               | pcimGroup                     |      |                           |   pcimGroupAuxClass           |      |                           |   pcimGroupInstance           |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | PolicyRule                | pcimRule                      |      |                           |   pcimRuleAuxClass            |      |                           |   pcimRuleInstance            |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | PolicyCondition           | pcimConditionAuxClass         |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | PolicyAction              | pcimActionAuxClass            |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | VendorPolicyCondition     | pcimConditionVendorAuxClass   |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | VendorPolicyAction        | pcimActionVendorAuxClass      |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | PolicyTimePeriodCondition | pcimTPCAuxClass               |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+      | PolicyRepository          | pcimRepository                |      |                           |   pcimRepositoryAuxClass      |      |                           |   pcimRepositoryInstance      |      +---------------------------+-------------------------------+          Figure 2.  Mapping of Information Model Classes to LDAP   The associations in the information model map to attributes that   reference DNs (Distinguished Names) or to Directory Information Tree   (DIT) containment (i.e., superior-subordinate relationships) in LDAP.   Two of the attributes that reference DNs appear in auxiliary classes,   which allow each of them to represent several relationships from the   information model.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+| Information Model Association     | LDAP Attribute / Class          |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------++-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+| PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup          | pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet in    ||                                   |  pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass   |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+| PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup           | pcimRulesAuxContainedSet in     ||                                   |  pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass    |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+| PolicyConditionInPolicyRule       | DIT containment or              ||                                   | pcimRuleConditionList in        ||                                   |  pcimRule or                    ||                                   | pcimConditionDN in              ||                                   |  pcimRuleConditionAssociation   |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+| PolicyActionInPolicyRule          | DIT containment or              ||                                   | pcimRuleActionList in           ||                                   |  pcimRule or                    ||                                   | pcimActionDN in                 ||                                   |  pcimRuleActionAssociation      |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+| PolicyRuleValidityPeriod          | pcimRuleValidityPeriodList      ||                                   |  in pcimRule or (if reusable)   ||                                   |  referenced through the         ||                                   | pcimTimePeriodConditionDN in    ||                                   |  pcimRuleValidityAssociation    |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+| PolicyConditionInPolicyRepository | DIT containment                 |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+| PolicyActionInPolicyRepository    | DIT containment                 |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+| PolicyRepositoryInPolicyRepository| DIT containment                 |+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+      Figure 3.  Mapping of Information Model Associations to LDAP   Of the remaining classes in the PCLS, two (pcimElementAuxClass and   pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass) are included to make navigation through the   DIT and retrieval of the entries found there more efficient.  This   topic is discussed below inSection 4.5.   The remaining four classes in the PCLS, pcimRuleConditionAssociation,   pcimRuleValidityAssociation, pcimRuleActionAssociation, and   pcimPolicyInstance, are all involved with the representation of   policy conditions and policy actions in an LDAP directory.  This   topic is discussed below inSection 4.4.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 20044.2.  Usage of DIT Content and Structure Rules and Name Forms   There are three powerful tools that can be used to help define   schemata. The first, DIT content rules, is a way of defining the   content of an entry for a structural object class.  It can be used to   specify the following characteristics of the entry:      -  additional mandatory attributes that the entries are required         to contain      -  additional optional attributes the entries are allowed to         contain      -  the set of additional auxiliary object classes that these         entries are allowed to be members of      -  any optional attributes from the structural and auxiliary         object class definitions that the entries are required to         preclude   DIT content rules are NOT mandatory for any structural object class.   A DIT structure rule, together with a name form, controls the   placement and naming of an entry within the scope of a subschema.   Name forms define which attribute type(s) are required and are   allowed to be used in forming the Relative Distinguished Names (RDNs)   of entries.  DIT structure rules specify which entries are allowed to   be superior to other entries, and hence control the way that RDNs are   added together to make DNs.   A name form specifies the following:      -  the structural object class of the entries named by this name         form      -  attributes that are required to be used in forming the RDNs of         these entries      -  attributes that are allowed to be used in forming the RDNs of         these entries      -  an object identifier to uniquely identify this name form   Note that name forms can only be specified for structural object   classes.  However, every entry in the DIT must have a name form   controlling it.   Unfortunately, current LDAP servers vary quite a lot in their support   of these features.  There are also three crucial implementation   points that must be followed.  First, X.500 use of structure rules   requires that a structural object class with no superior structure   rule be a subschema administrative point.  This is exactly NOT what   we want for policy information.  Second, when an auxiliary class is   subclassed, if a content rule exists for the structural class thatStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   the auxiliary class refers to, then that content rule needs to be   augmented.  Finally, most LDAP servers unfortunately do not support   inheritance of structure and content rules.   Given these concerns, DIT structure and content rules have been   removed from the PCLS.  This is because, if included, they would be   normative references and would require OIDs.  However, we don't want   to lose the insight gained in building the structure and content   rules of the previous version of the schema.  Therefore, we describe   where such rules could be used in this schema, what they would   control, and what their effect would be.4.3.  Naming Attributes in the PCLS   Instances in a directory are identified by distinguished names (DNs),   which provide the same type of hierarchical organization that a file   system provides in a computer system.  A distinguished name is a   sequence of RDNs.  An RDN provides a unique identifier for an   instance within the context of its immediate superior, in the same   way that a filename provides a unique identifier for a file within   the context of the folder in which it resides.   To preserve maximum naming flexibility for policy administrators,   three optional (i.e., "MAY") naming attributes have been defined.   They are:      -  Each of the structural classes defined in this schema has its         own unique ("MAY") naming attribute.  Since the naming         attributes are different, a policy administrator can, by using         these attributes, guarantee that there will be no name         collisions between instances of different classes, even if the         same value is assigned to the instances' respective naming         attributes.      -  The LDAP attribute cn (corresponding to X.500's commonName) is         included as a MAY attribute in the abstract class pcimPolicy,         and thus by inheritance in all of its subclasses.  In X.500,         commonName typically functions as an RDN attribute, for naming         instances of many classes (e.g., X.500's person class).      -  A special attribute is provided for implementations that expect         to map between native CIM and LDAP representations of policy         information.  This attribute, called orderedCimKeys, is defined         in the class dlm1ManagedElement [6].  The value of this         attribute is derived algorithmically from values that are         already present in a CIM policy instance.  The normative         reference for this algorithm is contained in [6].  See the         appendix of this document for a description of the algorithm.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   Since any of these naming attributes MAY be used for naming an   instance of a PCLS class, implementations MUST be able to accommodate   instances named in any of these ways.   Note that it is recommended that two or more of these attributes   SHOULD NOT be used together to form a multi-part RDN, since support   for multi-part RDNs is limited among existing directory   implementations.4.4.  Rule-Specific and Reusable Conditions and Actions   The PCIM [1] distinguishes between two types of policy conditions and   policy actions:  those associated with a single policy rule, and   those that are reusable, in the sense that they may be associated   with more than one policy rule.  While there is no inherent   functional difference between a rule-specific condition or action and   a reusable one, there is both a usage, as well as, an implementation   difference between them.   Defining a condition or action as reusable vs. rule-specific reflects   a conscious decision on the part of the administrator in defining how   they are used.  In addition, there are variations that reflect   implementing rule-specific vs. reusable policy conditions and actions   and how they are treated in a policy repository.  The major   implementation differences between a rule-specific and a reusable   condition or action are delineated below:   1.  It is natural for a rule-specific condition or action to be       removed from the policy repository at the same time the rule is.       It is just the opposite for reusable conditions and actions.       This is because the condition or action is conceptually attached       to the rule in the rule-specific case, whereas it is referenced       (e.g., pointed at) in the reusable case.  The persistence of a       pcimRepository instance is independent of the persistence of a       pcimRule instance.   2.  Access permissions for a rule-specific condition or action are       usually identical to those for the rule itself.  On the other       hand, access permissions of reusable conditions and actions must       be expressible without reference to a policy rule.   3.  Rule-specific conditions and actions require fewer accesses,       because the conditions and actions are "attached" to the rule.       In contrast, reusable conditions and actions require more       accesses, because each condition or action that is reusable       requires a separate access.   4.  Rule-specific conditions and actions are designed for use by a       single rule.  As the number of rules that use the same       rule-specific condition increase, subtle problems are created       (the most obvious being how to keep the rule-specific conditionsStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004       and actions updated to reflect the same value).  Reusable       conditions and actions lend themselves for use by multiple       independent rules.   5.  Reusable conditions and actions offer an optimization when       multiple rules are using the same condition or action.  This is       because the reusable condition or action only needs be updated       once, and by virtue of DN reference, the policy rules will be       automatically updated.   The preceding paragraph does not contain an exhaustive list of the   ways in which reusable and rule-specific conditions should be treated   differently.  Its purpose is merely to justify making a semantic   distinction between rule-specific and reusable, and then reflecting   this distinction in the policy repository itself.   When the policy repository is realized in an LDAP-accessible   directory, the distinction between rule-specific and reusable   conditions and actions is realized via placement of auxiliary classes   and via DIT containment.  Figure 4 illustrates a policy rule Rule1   with one rule-specific condition CA and one rule-specific action AB.                    +-----+                    |Rule1|                    |     |              +-----|-   -|-----+              |     +-----+     |              |       * *       |              |       * *       |              |    **** ****    |              |    *       *    |              v    *       *    v            +--------+   +--------+            | CA+ca  |   | AB+ab  |            +--------+   +--------+                          +------------------------------+                          |LEGEND:                       |                          |  ***** DIT containment       |                          |    +   auxiliary attachment  |                          |  ----> DN reference          |                          +------------------------------+           Figure 4  Rule-Specific Policy Conditions and ActionsStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   Because the condition and action are specific to Rule1, the auxiliary   classes ca and ab that represent them are attached, respectively, to   the structural classes CA and AB.  These structural classes represent   not the condition ca and action ab themselves, but rather the   associations between Rule1 and ca, and between Rule1 and ab.   As Figure 4 illustrates, Rule1 contains DN references to the   structural classes CA and AB that appear below it in the DIT.  At   first glance it might appear that these DN references are   unnecessary, since a subtree search below Rule1 would find all of the   structural classes representing the associations between Rule1 and   its conditions and actions.  Relying only on a subtree search,   though, runs the risk of missing conditions or actions that should   have appeared in the subtree, but for some reason did not, or of   finding conditions or actions that were inadvertently placed in the   subtree, or that should have been removed from the subtree, but for   some reason were not.  Implementation experience has suggested that   many (but not all) of these risks are eliminated.   However, it must be noted that this comes at a price.  The use of DN   references, as shown in Figure 4 above, thwarts inheritance of access   control information as well as existence dependency information.  It   also is subject to referential integrity considerations.  Therefore,   it is being included as an option for the designer.   Figure 5 illustrates a second way of representing rule-specific   conditions and actions in an LDAP-accessible directory: attachment of   the auxiliary classes directly to the instance representing the   policy rule.  When all of the conditions and actions are attached to   a policy rule in this way, the rule is termed a "simple" policy rule.   When conditions and actions are not attached directly to a policy   rule, the rule is termed a "complex" policy rule.                    +-----------+                    |Rule1+ca+ab|                    |           |                    +-----------+                          +------------------------------+                          |LEGEND:                       |                          |    +   auxiliary attachment  |                          +------------------------------+                      Figure 5.  A Simple Policy RuleStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The simple/complex distinction for a policy rule is not all or   nothing.  A policy rule may have its conditions attached to itself   and its actions attached to other entries, or it may have its actions   attached to itself and its conditions attached to other entries.   However, it SHALL NOT have either its conditions or its actions   attached both to itself and to other entries, with one exception:  a   policy rule may reference its validity periods with the   pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute, but have its other conditions   attached to itself.   The tradeoffs between simple and complex policy rules are between the   efficiency of simple rules and the flexibility and greater potential   for reuse of complex rules.  With a simple policy rule, the semantic   options are limited:   -   All conditions are ANDed together.  This combination can be       represented in two ways in the Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF)/       Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) (please see [1] for definitions of       these terms) expressions characteristic of policy conditions:  as       a DNF expression with a single AND group, or as a CNF expression       with multiple single-condition OR groups.  The first of these is       arbitrarily chosen as the representation for the ANDed conditions       in a simple policy rule.   -   If multiple actions are included, no order can be specified for       them.   If a policy administrator needs to combine conditions in some other   way, or if there is a set of actions that must be ordered, then the   only option is to use a complex policy rule.   Finally, Figure 6 illustrates the same policy rule Rule1, but this   time its condition and action are reusable.  The association classes   CA and AB are still present, and they are still DIT contained under   Rule1.  But rather than having the auxiliary classes ca and ab   attached directly to the association classes CA and AB, each now   contains DN references to other entries to which these auxiliary   classes are attached.  These other entries, CIA and AIB, are DIT   contained under RepositoryX, which is an instance of the class   pcimRepository.  Because they are named under an instance of   pcimRepository, ca and ab are clearly identified as reusable.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004                   +-----+             +-------------+                   |Rule1|             | RepositoryX |                 +-|-   -|--+          |             |                 | +-----+  |          +-------------+                 |   * *    |             *       *                 |   * *    |             *       *                 | *** **** |             *       *                 | *      * v             *       *                 | *     +---+            *       *                 | *     |AB |         +------+   *                 v *     |  -|-------->|AIB+ab|   *                +---+    +---+         +------+   *                |CA |                         +------+                |  -|------------------------>|CIA+ca|                +---+                         +------+                          +------------------------------+                          |LEGEND:                       |                          |  ***** DIT containment       |                          |    +   auxiliary attachment  |                          |  ----> DN reference          |                          +------------------------------+             Figure 6.  Reusable Policy Conditions and Actions   The classes pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass do not   themselves represent actual conditions and actions:  these are   introduced in their subclasses.  What pcimConditionAuxClass and   pcimActionAuxClass do introduce are the semantics of being a policy   condition or a policy action.  These are the semantics that all the   subclasses of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass inherit.   Among these semantics are those of representing either a   rule-specific or a reusable policy condition or policy action.   In order to preserve the ability to represent a rule-specific or a   reusable condition or action, as well as a simple policy rule, all   the subclasses of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass MUST   also be auxiliary classes.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 20044.5.  Location and Retrieval of Policy Objects in the Directory   When a Policy Decision Point (PDP) goes to an LDAP directory to   retrieve the policy object instances relevant to the Policy   Enforcement Points (PEPs) it serves, it is faced with two related   problems:   -   How does it locate and retrieve the directory entries that apply       to its PEPs?  These entries may include instances of the PCLS       classes, instances of domain-specific subclasses of these       classes, and instances of other classes modeling such resources       as user groups, interfaces, and address ranges.   -   How does it retrieve the directory entries it needs in an       efficient manner, so that retrieval of policy information from       the directory does not become a roadblock to scalability?  There       are two facets to this efficiency:  retrieving only the relevant       directory entries, and retrieving these entries using as few LDAP       calls as possible.   The placement of objects in the Directory Information Tree (DIT)   involves considerations other than how the policy-related objects   will be retrieved by a PDP.  Consequently, all that the PCLS can do   is to provide a "toolkit" of classes to assist the policy   administrator as the DIT is being designed and built.  A PDP SHOULD   be able to take advantage of any tools that the policy administrator   is able to build into the DIT, but it MUST be able to use a less   efficient means of retrieval if that is all it has available to it.   The basic idea behind the LDAP optimization classes is a simple one:   make it possible for a PDP to retrieve all the policy-related objects   it needs, and only those objects, using as few LDAP calls as   possible.  An important assumption underlying this approach is that   the policy administrator has sufficient control over the underlying   DIT structure to define subtrees for storing policy information.  If   the policy administrator does not have this level of control over DIT   structure, a PDP can still retrieve the policy-related objects it   needs individually.  But it will require more LDAP access operations   to do the retrieval in this way.  Figure 7 illustrates how LDAP   optimization is accomplished.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004                       +-----+      ---------------->|  A  |      DN reference to  |     |    DN references to subtrees   +---+      starting object  +-----+    +-------------------------->| C |                       |  o--+----+         +---+             +---+                       |  o--+------------->| B |            /     \                       +-----+              +---+           /       \                      /       \            /     \         /   ...   \                     /         \          /       \                    /           \        /   ...   \      Figure 7.  Using the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass to Locate Policies   The PDP is configured initially with a DN reference to some entry in   the DIT.  The structural class of this entry is not important; the   PDP is interested only in the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass attached to it.   This auxiliary class contains a multi-valued attribute with DN   references to objects that anchor subtrees containing policy-related   objects of interest to the PDP.  Since pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass is an   auxiliary class, it can be attached to an entry that the PDP would   need to access anyway - perhaps an entry containing initial   configuration settings for the PDP, or for a PEP that uses the PDP.   Once it has retrieved the DN references, the PDP will direct to each   of the objects identified by them an LDAP request that all entries in   its subtree be evaluated against the selection criteria specified in   the request.  The LDAP-enabled directory then returns all entries in   that subtree that satisfy the specified criteria.   The selection criteria always specify that object.   Since all classes representing policy rules, policy conditions, and   policy actions, both in the PCLS and in any domain-specific schema   derived from it, are subclasses of the abstract class policy, this   criterion evaluates to TRUE for all instances of these classes.  To   accommodate special cases where a PDP needs to retrieve objects that   are not inherently policy-related (for example, an IP address range   object referenced by a subclass of pcimActionAuxClass representing   the DHCP action "assign from this address range"), the auxiliary   class pcimElementAuxClass can be used to "tag" an entry, so that it   will be found by the selection criterion "object class=pcimPolicy".   The approach described in the preceding paragraph will not work for   certain directory implementations, because these implementations do   not support matching of auxiliary classes in the objectClass   attribute.  For environments where these implementations are expected   to be present, the "tagging" of entries as relevant to policy can beStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   accomplished by inserting the special value "POLICY" into the list of   values contained in the pcimKeywords attribute (provided by the   pcimPolicy class).   If a PDP needs only a subset of the policy-related objects in the   indicated subtrees, then it can be configured with additional   selection criteria based on the pcimKeywords attribute defined in the   pcimPolicy class.  This attribute supports both standardized and   administrator- defined values.  For example, a PDP could be   configured to request only those policy-related objects containing   the keywords "DHCP" and "Eastern US".   To optimize what is expected to be a typical case, the initial   request from the client includes not only the object to which its   "seed" DN references, but also the subtree contained under this   object.  The filter for searching this subtree is whatever the client   is going to use later to search the other subtrees:  object   or the presence of the keyword "POLICY", and/or   presence of a more specific value of pcimKeywords (e.g., "QoS Edge   Policy").   Returning to the example in Figure 7, we see that in the best case, a   PDP can get all the policy-related objects it needs, and only those   objects, with exactly three LDAP requests:  one to its starting   object A to get the references to B and C, as well as the   policy-related objects it needs from the subtree under A, and then   one each to B and C to get all the policy-related objects that pass   the selection criteria with which it was configured.  Once it has   retrieved all of these objects, the PDP can then traverse their   various DN references locally to understand the semantic   relationships among them.  The PDP should also be prepared to find a   reference to another subtree attached to any of the objects it   retrieves, and to follow this reference first, before it follows any   of the semantically significant references it has received.  This   recursion permits a structured approach to identifying related   policies.  In Figure 7, for example, if the subtree under B includes   departmental policies and the one under C includes divisional   policies, then there might be a reference from the subtree under C to   an object D that roots the subtree of corporate-level policies.   A PDP SHOULD understand the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass class, SHOULD be   capable of retrieving and processing the entries in the subtrees it   references, and SHOULD be capable of doing all of this recursively.   The same requirements apply to any other entity needing to retrieve   policy information from the directory.  Thus, a Policy Management   Tool that retrieves policy entries from the directory in order to   perform validation and conflict detection SHOULD also understand and   be capable of using the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass.  All of theseStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   requirements are "SHOULD"s rather than "MUST"s because an LDAP client   that doesn't implement them can still access and retrieve the   directory entries it needs.  The process of doing so will just be   less efficient than it would have been if the client had implemented   these optimizations.   When it is serving as a tool for creating policy entries in the   directory, a Policy Management Tool SHOULD support creation of   pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass entries and their references to object   instances.4.5.1.  Aliases and Other DIT-Optimization Techniques   Additional flexibility in DIT structure is available to the policy   administrator via LDAP aliasing and other techniques.  Previous   versions of this document have used aliases.  However, because   aliases are experimental, the use of aliases has been removed from   this version of this document.  This is because the IETF has yet to   produce a specification on how aliases are represented in the   directory or how server implementations are to process aliases.5.  Class Definitions   The semantics for the policy information classes that are to be   mapped directly from the information model to an LDAP representation   are detailed in [1].  Consequently, all that this document presents   for these classes is the specification for how to do the mapping from   the information model (which is independent of repository type and   access protocol) to a form that can be accessed using LDAP.  Remember   that some new classes needed to be created (that were not part of   [1]) to implement the LDAP mapping.  These new LDAP-only classes are   fully documented in this document.   The formal language for specifying the classes, attributes, and DIT   structure and content rules is that defined in reference [3].  If   your implementation does not support auxiliary class inheritance, you   will have to list auxiliary classes in content rules explicitly or   define them in another (implementation-specific) way.   The following notes apply to this section in its entirety.   Note 1: in the following definitions, the class and attribute   definitions followRFC 2252 [3] but they are line-wrapped to enhance   human readability.   Note 2: where applicable, the possibilities for specifying DIT   structure and content rules are noted.  However, care must be taken   in specifying DIT structure rules.  This is because X.501 [4] statesStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   that an entry may only exist in the DIT as a subordinate to another   superior entry (the superior) if a DIT structure rule exists in the   governing subschema which:   1)  indicates a name form for the structural object class of the       subordinate entry, and   2)  either includes the entry's superior structure rule as a possible       superior structure rule, or   3)  does not specify a superior structure rule.   If this last case (3) applies, then the entry is defined to be a   subschema administrative point.  This is not what is desired.   Therefore, care must be taken in defining structure rules, and in   particular, they must be locally augmented.   Note 3: Wherever possible, both an equality and a substring matching   rule are defined for a particular attribute (as well as an ordering   match rule to enable sorting of matching results).  This provides two   different choices for the developer for maximum flexibility.   For example, consider the pcimRoles attribute (section 5.3).  Suppose   that a PEP has reported that it is interested in pcimRules for three   roles R1, R2, and R3.  If the goal is to minimize queries, then the   PDP can supply three substring filters containing the three role   names.   These queries will return all of the pcimRules that apply to the PEP,   but they may also get some that do not apply (e.g., ones that contain   one of the roles R1, R2, or R3 and one or more other roles present in   a role-combination [1]).   Another strategy would be for the PDP to use only equality filters.   This approach eliminates the extraneous replies, but it requires the   PDP to explicitly build the desired role-combinations itself.  It   also requires extra queries.  Note that this approach is practical   only because the role names in a role combination are required to   appear in alphabetical order.   Note 4: in the following definitions, note that all LDAP matching   rules are defined in [3] and in [9].  The corresponding X.500   matching rules are defined in [8].   Note 5: some of the following attribute definitions specify   additional constraints on various data types (e.g., this integer has   values that are valid  from 1..10).  Text has been added to instruct   servers and applications what to do if a value outside of this rangeStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 20]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   is encountered.  In all cases, if a constraint is violated, then the   policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled, meaning that   execution of the policy rule SHOULD be stopped.5.1.  The Abstract Class pcimPolicy   The abstract class pcimPolicy is a direct mapping of the abstract   class Policy from the PCIM.  The class value "pcimPolicy" is also   used as the mechanism for identifying policy-related instances in the   Directory Information Tree.  An instance of any class may be "tagged"   with this class value by attaching to it the auxiliary class   pcimElementAuxClass.  Since pcimPolicy is derived from the class   dlm1ManagedElement defined in reference [6], this specification has a   normative dependency on that element of reference [6].   The class definition is as follows:       ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.1 NAME 'pcimPolicy'         DESC 'An abstract class that is the base class for all classes               that describe policy-related instances.'         SUP dlm1ManagedElement         ABSTRACT         MAY ( cn $ dlmCaption $ dlmDescription $ orderedCimKeys $               pcimKeywords )       )   The attribute cn is defined inRFC 2256 [7].  The dlmCaption,   dlmDescription, and orderedCimKeys attributes are defined in [6].   The pcimKeywords attribute is a multi-valued attribute that contains   a set of keywords to assist directory clients in locating the policy   objects identified by these keywords.  It is defined as follows:       ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.3 NAME 'pcimKeywords'              DESC 'A set of keywords to assist directory clients in                    locating the policy objects applicable to them.'              EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch              ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch              SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch              SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15       )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 21]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 20045.2.  The Three Policy Group Classes   PCIM [1] defines the PolicyGroup class to serve as a generalized   aggregation mechanism, enabling PolicyRules and/or PolicyGroups to be   aggregated together.  PCLS maps this class into three LDAP classes,   called pcimGroup, pcimGroupAuxClass, and pcimGroupInstance.  This is   done in order to provide maximum flexibility for the DIT designer.   The class definitions for the three policy group classes are listed   below.  These class definitions do not include attributes to realize   the PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup and PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup associations   from the PCIM.  This is because a pcimGroup object refers to   instances of pcimGroup and pcimRule via, respectively, the attribute   pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet in the pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass object   class and the attribute pcimRulesAuxContainedSet in the   pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass object class.   To maximize flexibility, the pcimGroup class is defined as abstract.   The subclass pcimGroupAuxClass provides for auxiliary attachment to   another entry, while the structural subclass pcimGroupInstance is   available to represent a policy group as a standalone entry.   The class definitions are as follows.  First, the definition of the   abstract class pcimGroup:       ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.2 NAME 'pcimGroup'              DESC 'A container for a set of related pcimRules and/or                    a set of related pcimGroups.'              SUP pcimPolicy              ABSTRACT              MAY ( pcimGroupName )       )   The one attribute of pcimGroup is pcimGroupName.  This attribute is   used to define a user-friendly name of this policy group, and may be   used as a naming attribute if desired.  It is defined as follows:       ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.4 NAME 'pcimGroupName'              DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy group.'              EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch              ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch              SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch              SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15              SINGLE-VALUE       )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 22]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The two subclasses of pcimGroup are defined as follows.  The class   pcimGroupAuxClass is an auxiliary class that can be used to collect a   set of related pcimRule and/or pcimGroup classes.  It is defined as   follows:       ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.3 NAME 'pcimGroupAuxClass'              DESC 'An auxiliary class that collects a set of related                    pcimRule and/or pcimGroup entries.'              SUP pcimGroup              AUXILIARY       )   The class pcimGroupInstance is a structural class that can be used to   collect a set of related pcimRule and/or pcimGroup classes.  It is   defined as follows:       ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.4 NAME 'pcimGroupInstance'              DESC 'A structural class that collects a set of related                    pcimRule and/or pcimGroup entries.'              SUP pcimGroup              STRUCTURAL       )   A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of   pcimGroupInstance to have attached to it either references to one or   more policy groups (using pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass) or references   to one or more policy rules (using pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass).   This would be used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyGroup   class [1].  Since these semantics do not include specifying any   properties of the PolicyGroup class, the content rule would not need   to specify any attributes.   Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written, each   of which would refer to a specific name form that identified one of   the three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimGroupName, cn, and   orderedCIMKeys) for the pcimGroup object class.  This structure rule   SHOULD include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning   ofsection 5).  The three name forms referenced by the three   structure rules would each define one of the three naming attributes.5.3.  The Three Policy Rule Classes   The information model defines a PolicyRule class to represent the "If   Condition then Action" semantics associated with processing policy   information.  For maximum flexibility, the PCLS maps this class into   three LDAP classes.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 23]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   To maximize flexibility, the pcimRule class is defined as abstract.   The subclass pcimRuleAuxClass provides for auxiliary attachment to   another entry, while the structural subclass pcimRuleInstance is   available to represent a policy rule as a standalone entry.   The conditions and actions associated with a policy rule are modeled,   respectively, with auxiliary subclasses of the auxiliary classes   pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass.  Each of these   auxiliary subclasses is attached to an instance of one of three   structural classes.  A subclass of pcimConditionAuxClass is attached   to an instance of pcimRuleInstance, to an instance of   pcimRuleConditionAssociation, or to an instance of   pcimPolicyInstance.  Similarly, a subclass of pcimActionAuxClass is   attached to an instance of pcimRuleInstance, to an instance of   pcimRuleActionAssociation, or to an instance of pcimPolicyInstance.   The pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute (defined below) realizes the   PolicyRuleValidityPeriod association defined in the PCIM.  Since this   association has no additional properties besides those that tie the   association to its associated objects, this association can be   realized by simply using an attribute.  Thus, the   pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute is simply a multi-valued   attribute that provides an unordered set of DN references to one or   more instances of the pcimTPCAuxClass, indicating when the policy   rule is scheduled to be active and when it is scheduled to be   inactive.  A policy rule is scheduled to be active if it is active   according to AT LEAST ONE of the pcimTPCAuxClass instances referenced   by this attribute.   The PolicyConditionInPolicyRule and PolicyActionInPolicyRule   associations, however, do have additional attributes.  The   association PolicyActionInPolicyRule defines an integer attribute to   sequence the actions, and the association PolicyConditionInPolicyRule   has both an integer attribute to group the condition terms as well as   a Boolean property to specify whether a condition is to be negated.   In the PCLS, these additional association attributes are represented   as attributes of two classes introduced specifically to model these   associations.  These classes are the pcimRuleConditionAssociation   class and the pcimRuleActionAssociation class, which are defined in   Sections5.4 and5.5, respectively.  Thus, they do not appear as   attributes of the class pcimRule.  Instead, the pcimRuleConditionList   and pcimRuleActionList attributes can be used to reference these   classes.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 24]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The class definitions for the three pcimRule classes are as follows.   The abstract class pcimRule is a base class for representing the "If   Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.  It   is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.5 NAME 'pcimRule'            DESC 'The base class for representing the "If Condition                  then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.'            SUP pcimPolicy            ABSTRACT            MAY ( pcimRuleName $ pcimRuleEnabled $                  pcimRuleConditionListType $ pcimRuleConditionList $                  pcimRuleActionList $ pcimRuleValidityPeriodList $                  pcimRuleUsage $ pcimRulePriority $                  pcimRuleMandatory $ pcimRuleSequencedActions $                  pcimRoles )     )   The PCIM [1] defines seven properties for the PolicyRule class.  The   PCLS defines eleven attributes for the pcimRule class, which is the   LDAP equivalent of the PolicyRule class.  Of these eleven attributes,   seven are mapped directly from corresponding properties in PCIM's   PolicyRule class.  The remaining four attributes are a class-specific   optional naming attribute, and three attributes used to realize the   three associations that the pcimRule class participates in.   The pcimRuleName attribute is used as a user-friendly name of this   policy rule, and can also serve as the class-specific optional naming   attribute.  It is defined as follows:        ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.5 NAME 'pcimRuleName'               DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy rule.'               EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch               ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch               SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch               SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15               SINGLE-VALUE        )   The pcimRuleEnabled attribute is an integer enumeration indicating   whether a policy rule is administratively enabled (value=1),   administratively disabled (value=2), or enabled for debug (value=3).   It is defined as follows:        ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.6 NAME 'pcimRuleEnabled'               DESC 'An integer indicating whether a policy rule is                     administratively enabled (value=1), disabledStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 25]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004                     (value=2), or enabled for debug (value=3).'               EQUALITY integerMatch               ORDERING integerOrderingMatch               SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27               SINGLE-VALUE        )   Note: All other values for the pcimRuleEnabled attribute are   considered errors, and the administrator SHOULD treat this rule as   being disabled if an invalid value is found.   The pcimRuleConditionListType attribute is used to indicate whether   the list of policy conditions associated with this policy rule is in   disjunctive normal form (DNF, value=1) or conjunctive normal form   (CNF, value=2).  It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.7 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionListType'            DESC 'A value of 1 means that this policy rule is in                  disjunctive normal form; a value of 2 means that this                  policy rule is in conjunctive normal form.'            EQUALITY integerMatch            ORDERING integerOrderingMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27            SINGLE-VALUE     )   Note: any value other than 1 or 2 for the pcimRuleConditionListType   attribute is considered an error.  Administrators SHOULD treat this   rule as being disabled if an invalid value is found, since it is   unclear how to structure the condition list.   The pcimRuleConditionList attribute is a multi-valued attribute that   is used to realize the policyRuleInPolicyCondition association   defined in [1].  It contains a set of DNs of   pcimRuleConditionAssociation entries representing associations   between this policy rule and its conditions.  No order is implied.   It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.8 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionList'            DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleConditionAssociation                  entries representing associations between this policy                  rule and its conditions.'            EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 26]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The pcimRuleActionList attribute is a multi-valued attribute that is   used to realize the policyRuleInPolicyAction association defined in   [1].  It contains a set of DNs of pcimRuleActionAssociation entries   representing associations between this policy rule and its actions.   No order is implied.  It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.9 NAME 'pcimRuleActionList'            DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleActionAssociation                  entries representing associations between this policy                  rule and its actions.'           EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch           SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12     )   The pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute is a multi-valued attribute   that is used to realize the pcimRuleValidityPeriod association that   is defined in [1].  It contains a set of DNs of   pcimRuleValidityAssociation entries that determine when the pcimRule   is scheduled to be active or inactive.  No order is implied.  It is   defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.10 NAME 'pcimRuleValidityPeriodList'            DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleValidityAssociation                  entries that determine when the pcimRule is scheduled                  to be active or inactive.'            EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12     )   The pcimRuleUsage attribute is a free-form string providing   guidelines on how this policy should be used.  It is defined as   follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.11 NAME 'pcimRuleUsage'            DESC 'This attribute is a free-form sting providing                  guidelines on how this policy should be used.'            EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch            ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch            SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15            SINGLE-VALUE     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 27]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The pcimRulePriority attribute is a non-negative integer that is used   to prioritize this pcimRule relative to other pcimRules.  A larger   value indicates a higher priority.  It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.12 NAME 'pcimRulePriority'            DESC 'A non-negative integer for prioritizing this                  pcimRule relative to other pcimRules.  A larger                  value indicates a higher priority.'            EQUALITY integerMatch            ORDERING integerOrderingMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27            SINGLE-VALUE     )   Note: if the value of the pcimRulePriority field is 0, then it SHOULD   be treated as "don't care".  On the other hand, if the value is   negative, then it SHOULD be treated as an error and Administrators   SHOULD treat this rule as being disabled.   The pcimRuleMandatory attribute is a Boolean attribute that, if TRUE,   indicates that for this policy rule, the evaluation of its conditions   and execution of its actions (if the condition is satisfied) is   required.  If it is FALSE, then the evaluation of its conditions and   execution of its actions (if the condition is satisfied) is not   required.  This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.13 NAME 'pcimRuleMandatory'            DESC 'If TRUE, indicates that for this policy rule, the                  evaluation of its conditions and execution of its                  actions (if the condition is satisfied) is required.'            EQUALITY booleanMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7            SINGLE-VALUE     )   The pcimRuleSequencedActions attribute is an integer enumeration that   is used to indicate that the ordering of actions defined by the   pcimActionOrder attribute is either  mandatory(value=1),   recommended(value=2), or dontCare(value=3).  It is defined as   follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.14 NAME 'pcimRuleSequencedActions'            DESC 'An integer enumeration indicating that the ordering of                  actions defined by the pcimActionOrder attribute is                  mandatory(1), recommended(2), or dontCare(3).'            EQUALITY integerMatch            ORDERING integerOrderingMatchStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 28]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27            SINGLE-VALUE     )   Note: if the value of pcimRulesSequencedActions field is not one of   these three values, then Administrators SHOULD treat this rule as   being disabled.   The pcimRoles attribute represents the policyRoles property of [1].   Each value of this attribute represents a role-combination, which is   a string of the form:       <RoleName>[&&<RoleName>]* where the individual role names appear   in alphabetical order according to the collating sequence for UCS-2.   This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.15 NAME 'pcimRoles'            DESC 'Each value of this attribute represents a role-                  combination.'            EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch            ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch            SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15     )   Note: if the value of the pcimRoles attribute does not conform to the   format "<RoleName>[&&<RoleName>]*" (see Section 6.3.7 of [1]), then   this attribute is malformed and its policy rule SHOULD be treated as   being disabled.   The two subclasses of the pcimRule class are defined as follows.   First, the pcimRuleAuxClass is an auxiliary class for representing   the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy   rule.  Its class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.6 NAME 'pcimRuleAuxClass'            DESC 'An auxiliary class for representing the "If Condition                 then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.'            SUP pcimRule            AUXILIARY     )   The pcimRuleInstance is a structural class for representing the "If   Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.  Its   class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.7 NAME 'pcimRuleInstance'            DESC 'A structural class for representing the "If Condition                 then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.'Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 29]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004            SUP pcimRule            STRUCTURAL     )   A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of   pcimRuleInstance to have attached to it either references to one or   more policy conditions (using pcimConditionAuxClass) or references to   one or more policy actions (using pcimActionAuxClass).  This would be   used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyRule class [1].  Since   these semantics do not include specifying any properties of the   PolicyRule class, the content rule would not need to specify any   attributes.   Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written, each   of which would refer to a specific name form that identified one of   its three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimRuleName, cn, and   orderedCIMKeys).  This structure rule SHOULD include a   superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning ofsection 5).   The three name forms referenced by the three structure rules would   each define one of the three naming attributes.5.4.  The Class pcimRuleConditionAssociation   This class contains attributes to represent the properties of the   PCIM's PolicyConditionInPolicyRule association.  Instances of this   class are related to an instance of pcimRule via DIT containment.   The policy conditions themselves are represented by auxiliary   subclasses of the auxiliary class pcimConditionAuxClass.  These   auxiliary classes are attached directly to instances of   pcimRuleConditionAssociation for rule-specific policy conditions.   For a reusable policy condition, the policyCondition auxiliary   subclass is attached to an instance of the class pcimPolicyInstance   (which is presumably associated with a pcimRepository by DIT   containment), and the policyConditionDN attribute (of this class) is   used to reference the reusable policyCondition instance.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.8 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionAssociation'            DESC 'This class contains attributes characterizing the                  relationship between a policy rule and one of its                  policy conditions.'            SUP pcimPolicy            MUST ( pcimConditionGroupNumber $ pcimConditionNegated )            MAY ( pcimConditionName $ pcimConditionDN )     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 30]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The attributes of this class are defined as follows.   The pcimConditionGroupNumber attribute is a non-negative integer.  It   is used to identify the group to which the condition referenced by   this association is assigned.  This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.16            NAME 'pcimConditionGroupNumber'            DESC 'The number of the group to which a policy condition                  belongs.  This is used to form the DNF or CNF                  expression associated with a policy rule.'            EQUALITY integerMatch            ORDERING integerOrderingMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27            SINGLE-VALUE     )   Note that this number is non-negative.  A negative value for this   attribute is invalid, and any policy rule that refers to an invalid   entry SHOULD be treated as being disabled.   The pcimConditionNegated attribute is a Boolean attribute that   indicates whether this policy condition is to be negated or not.  If   it is TRUE (FALSE), it indicates that a policy condition IS (IS NOT)   negated in the DNF or CNF expression associated with a policy rule.   This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.17            NAME 'pcimConditionNegated'            DESC 'If TRUE (FALSE), it indicates that a policy condition                  IS (IS NOT) negated in the DNF or CNF expression                  associated with a policy rule.'            EQUALITY booleanMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7            SINGLE-VALUE     )   The pcimConditionName is a user-friendly name for identifying this   policy condition, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired.   This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.18            NAME 'pcimConditionName'            DESC 'A user-friendly name for a policy condition.'            EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch            ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch            SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatchStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 31]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15            SINGLE-VALUE     )   The pcimConditionDN attribute is a DN that references an instance of   a reusable policy condition.  This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.19            NAME 'pcimConditionDN'            DESC 'A DN that references an instance of a reusable policy                  condition.'            EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12            SINGLE-VALUE     )   A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of   pcimRuleConditionAssociation to have attached to it an instance of   the auxiliary class pcimConditionAuxClass, or one of its subclasses.   This would be used to formalize the semantics of the   PolicyConditionInPolicyRule association.  Specifically, this would be   used to represent a rule-specific policy condition [1].   Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written.  Each   of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that   defined two important semantics.  First, each name form would   identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e.,   pcimConditionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the   pcimRuleConditionAssociation object class.  Second, each name form   would require that an instance of the pcimRuleConditionAssociation   class have as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class.  This   structure rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note   2 at the beginning ofsection 5).5.5.  The Class pcimRuleValidityAssociation   The policyRuleValidityPeriod aggregation is mapped to the PCLS   pcimRuleValidityAssociation class.  This class represents the   scheduled activation and deactivation of a policy rule by binding the   definition of times that the policy is active to the policy rule   itself.  The "scheduled" times are either identified through an   attached auxiliary class pcimTPCAuxClass, or are referenced through   its pcimTimePeriodConditionDN attribute.   This class is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.9 NAME 'pcimRuleValidityAssociation'           DESC 'This defines the scheduled activation or deactivation                 of a policy rule.'Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 32]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004           SUP pcimPolicy           STRUCTURAL           MAY ( pcimValidityConditionName $ pcimTimePeriodConditionDN )     )   The attributes of this class are defined as follows:   The pcimValidityConditionName attribute is used to define a   user-friendly name of this condition, and may be used as a naming   attribute if desired.  This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.20            NAME 'pcimValidityConditionName'            DESC 'A user-friendly name for identifying an instance of                  a pcimRuleValidityAssociation entry.'            EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch            ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch            SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15            SINGLE-VALUE     )   The pcimTimePeriodConditionDN attribute is a DN that references a   reusable time period condition.  It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.21            NAME 'pcimTimePeriodConditionDN'             DESC 'A reference to a reusable policy time period                   condition.'            EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12            SINGLE-VALUE     )   A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of   pcimRuleValidityAssociation to have attached to it an instance of the   auxiliary class pcimTPCAuxClass, or one of its subclasses.  This   would be used to formalize the semantics of the   PolicyRuleValidityPeriod aggregation [1].   Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written.  Each   of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that   defined two important semantics.  First, each name form would   identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e.,   pcimValidityConditionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the   pcimRuleValidityAssociation object class.  Second, each name form   would require that an instance of the pcimRuleValidityAssociation   class have as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class.  ThisStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 33]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   structure rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note   2 at the beginning ofsection 5).5.6.  The Class pcimRuleActionAssociation   This class contains an attribute to represent the one property of the   PCIM PolicyActionInPolicyRule association, ActionOrder.  This   property is used to specify an order for executing the actions   associated with a policy rule.  Instances of this class are related   to an instance of pcimRule via DIT containment.  The actions   themselves are represented by auxiliary subclasses of the auxiliary   class pcimActionAuxClass.   These auxiliary classes are attached directly to instances of   pcimRuleActionAssociation for rule-specific policy actions.  For a   reusable policy action, the pcimAction auxiliary subclass is attached   to an instance of the class pcimPolicyInstance (which is presumably   associated with a pcimRepository by DIT containment), and the   pcimActionDN attribute (of this class) is used to reference the   reusable pcimCondition instance.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.10 NAME 'pcimRuleActionAssociation'            DESC 'This class contains attributes characterizing the                  relationship between a policy rule and one of its                  policy actions.'            SUP pcimPolicy            MUST ( pcimActionOrder )            MAY ( pcimActionName $ pcimActionDN )     )   The pcimActionName attribute is used to define a user-friendly name   of this action, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired.   This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.22            NAME 'pcimActionName'            DESC 'A user-friendly name for a policy action.'            EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch            ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch            SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15            SINGLE-VALUE     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 34]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The pcimActionOrder attribute is an unsigned integer that is used to   indicate the relative position of an action in a sequence of actions   that are associated with a given policy rule.  When this number is   positive, it indicates a place in the sequence of actions to be   performed, with smaller values indicating earlier positions in the   sequence.  If the value is zero, then this indicates that the order   is irrelevant.  Note that if two or more actions have the same   non-zero value, they may be performed in any order as long as they   are each performed in the correct place in the overall sequence of   actions.  This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.23            NAME 'pcimActionOrder'            DESC 'An integer indicating the relative order of an action                  in the context of a policy rule.'            EQUALITY integerMatch            ORDERING integerOrderingMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27            SINGLE-VALUE     )   Note: if the value of the pcimActionOrder field is negative, then it   SHOULD be treated as an error and any policy rule that refers to such   an entry SHOULD be treated as being disabled.   The pcimActionDN attribute is a DN that references a reusable policy   action.  It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.24            NAME 'pcimActionDN'            DESC 'A DN that references a reusable policy action.'            EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12            SINGLE-VALUE     )   A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of   pcimRuleActionAssociation to have attached to it an instance of the   auxiliary class pcimActionAuxClass, or one of its subclasses.  This   would be used to formalize the semantics of the   PolicyActionInPolicyRule association.  Specifically, this would be   used to represent a rule-specific policy action [1].   Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written.  Each   of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that   defined two important semantics.  First, each name form would   identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e.,   pcimActionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for theStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 35]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   pcimRuleActionAssociation object class.  Second, each name form would   require that an instance of the pcimRuleActionAssociation class have   as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class.  This structure   rule should also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the   beginning ofsection 5).5.7.  The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionAuxClass   The purpose of a policy condition is to determine whether or not the   set of actions (contained in the pcimRule that the condition applies   to) should be executed or not.  This class defines the basic   organizational semantics of a policy condition, as specified in [1].   Subclasses of this auxiliary class can be attached to instances of   three other classes in the PCLS.  When a subclass of this class is   attached to an instance of pcimRuleConditionAssociation, or to an   instance of pcimRule, it represents a rule-specific policy condition.   When a subclass of this class is attached to an instance of   pcimPolicyInstance, it represents a reusable policy condition.   Since all of the classes to which subclasses of this auxiliary class   may be attached are derived from the pcimPolicy class, the attributes   of pcimPolicy will already be defined for the entries to which these   subclasses attach.  Thus, this class is derived directly from "top".   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.11 NAME 'pcimConditionAuxClass'            DESC 'A class representing a condition to be evaluated in                  conjunction with a policy rule.'            SUP top            AUXILIARY     )5.8.  The Auxiliary Class pcimTPCAuxClass   The PCIM defines a time period class, PolicyTimePeriodCondition, to   provide a means of representing the time periods during which a   policy rule is valid, i.e., active.  It also defines an aggregation,   PolicyRuleValidityPeriod, so that time periods can be associated with   a PolicyRule.  The LDAP mapping also provides two classes, one for   the time condition itself, and one for the aggregation.   In the PCIM, the time period class is named   PolicyTimePeriodCondition. However, the resulting name of the   auxiliary class in this mapping (pcimTimePeriodConditionAuxClass)   exceeds the length of a name that some directories can store.   Therefore, the name has been shortened to pcimTPCAuxClass.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 36]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.12 NAME 'pcimTPCAuxClass'            DESC 'This provides the capability of enabling or disabling                  a policy rule according to a predetermined schedule.'            SUP pcimConditionAuxClass            AUXILIARY            MAY ( pcimTPCTime $ pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask $                  pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask $ pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask $                  pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask $ pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime )     )   The attributes of the pcimTPCAuxClass are defined as follows.   The pcimTPCTime attribute represents the time period that a policy   rule is enabled for.  This attribute is defined as a string in [1]   with a special format which defines a time period with a starting   date and an ending date separated by a forward slash ("/"), as   follows:       yyyymmddThhmmss/yyyymmddThhmmss   where the first date and time may be replaced with the string   "THISANDPRIOR" or the second date and time may be replaced with the   string "THISANDFUTURE".  This attribute is defined as follows:        ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.25               NAME 'pcimTPCTime'               DESC 'The start and end times on which a policy rule is                     valid.'               EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch               ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch               SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch               SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44               SINGLE-VALUE        )   The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined   format ("yyyymmddThhmmss/yyyymmddThhmmss", where the first and second   date strings may be replaced with the strings "THISANDPRIOR" and   "THISANDFUTURE").  If the value of this attribute does not conform to   this syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy   rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled.   The next four attributes (pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask,   pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask, pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask, and   pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask) are all defined as octet strings in [1].   However, the semantics of each of these attributes are contained inStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 37]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   bit strings of various fixed lengths.  Therefore, the PCLS uses a   syntax of Bit String to represent each of them.  The definition of   these four attributes are as follows.   The pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask attribute defines a 12-bit mask   identifying the months of the year in which a policy rule is valid.   The format is a bit string of length 12, representing the months of   the year from January through December.  The definition of this   attribute is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.26            NAME 'pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask'            DESC 'This identifies the valid months of the year for a                  policy rule using a 12-bit string that represents the                  months of the year from January through December.'            EQUALITY bitStringMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6            SINGLE-VALUE     )   The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined   format.  If the value of this attribute does not conform to this   syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule   SHOULD be treated as being disabled.   The pcimTPCMonthOfDayMask attribute defines a mask identifying the   days of the month on which a policy rule is valid.  The format is a   bit string of length 62.  The first 31 positions represent the days   of the month in ascending order, from day 1 to day 31.  The next 31   positions represent the days of the month in descending order, from   the last day to the day 31 days from the end.  The definition of this   attribute is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.27            NAME 'pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask'            DESC 'This identifies the valid days of the month for a                  policy rule using a 62-bit string. The first 31                  positions represent the days of the month in ascending                  order, and the next 31 positions represent the days of                  the month in descending order.'            EQUALITY bitStringMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6            SINGLE-VALUE     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 38]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined   format.  If the value of this attribute does not conform to this   syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule   SHOULD be treated as being disabled.   The pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask attribute defines a mask identifying the   days of the week on which a policy rule is valid.  The format is a   bit string of length 7, representing the days of the week from Sunday   through Saturday.  The definition of this attribute is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.28            NAME 'pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask'            DESC 'This identifies the valid days of the week for a                  policy rule using a 7-bit string. This represents                  the days of the week from Sunday through Saturday.'            EQUALITY bitStringMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6            SINGLE-VALUE     )   The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined   format.  If the value of this attribute does not conform to this   syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule   SHOULD be treated as being disabled.   The pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask attribute defines the range of times at   which a policy rule is valid.  If the second time is earlier than the   first, then the interval spans midnight.  The format of the string is   Thhmmss/Thhmmss.  The definition of this attribute is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.29            NAME 'pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask'            DESC 'This identifies the valid range of times for a policy                  using the format Thhmmss/Thhmmss.'            EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch            ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch            SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44            SINGLE-VALUE     )   The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined   format.  If the value of this attribute does not conform to this   syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule   SHOULD be treated as being disabled.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 39]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   Finally, the pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime attribute is used to choose   between local or UTC time representation.  This is mapped as a simple   integer syntax, with the value of 1 representing local time and the   value of 2 representing UTC time.  The definition of this attribute   is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.30            NAME 'pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime'            DESC 'This defines whether the times in this instance                  represent local (value=1) times or UTC (value=2)                  times.'            EQUALITY integerMatch            ORDERING integerOrderingMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27            SINGLE-VALUE     )   Note: if the value of the pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime is not 1 or 2, then   this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule SHOULD be   disabled. If the attribute is not present at all, then all times are   interpreted as if it were present with the value 2, that is, UTC   time.5.9.  The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionVendorAuxClass   This class provides a general extension mechanism for representing   policy conditions that have not been modeled with specific   properties. Instead, its two properties are used to define the   content and format of the condition, as explained below.  This class   is intended for vendor-specific extensions that are not amenable to   using pcimCondition; standardized extensions SHOULD NOT use this   class.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.13 NAME 'pcimConditionVendorAuxClass'            DESC 'A class that defines a registered means to describe a                  policy condition.'            SUP pcimConditionAuxClass            AUXILIARY            MAY ( pcimVendorConstraintData $                 pcimVendorConstraintEncoding )     )   The pcimVendorConstraintData attribute is a multi-valued attribute.   It provides a general mechanism for representing policy conditions   that have not been modeled as specific attributes.  This information   is encoded in a set of octet strings.  The format of the octetStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 40]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   strings is identified by the OID stored in the   pcimVendorConstraintEncoding attribute.  This attribute is defined as   follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.31            NAME 'pcimVendorConstraintData'            DESC 'Mechanism for representing constraints that have not                  been modeled as specific attributes.  Their format is                  identified by the OID stored in the attribute                  pcimVendorConstraintEncoding.'            EQUALITY octetStringMatch            ORDERING octetStringOrderingMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40     )   The pcimVendorConstraintEncoding attribute is used to identify the   format and semantics for the pcimVendorConstraintData attribute.   This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.32            NAME 'pcimVendorConstraintEncoding'            DESC 'An OID identifying the format and semantics for the                  pcimVendorConstraintData for this instance.'            EQUALITY objectIdentifierMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38            SINGLE-VALUE     )5.10.  The Auxiliary Class pcimActionAuxClass   The purpose of a policy action is to execute one or more operations   that will affect network traffic and/or systems, devices, etc. in   order to achieve a desired policy state.  This class is used to   represent an action to be performed as a result of a policy rule   whose condition clause was satisfied.   Subclasses of this auxiliary class can be attached to instances of   three other classes in the PCLS.  When a subclass of this class is   attached to an instance of pcimRuleActionAssociation, or to an   instance of pcimRule, it represents a rule-specific policy action.   When a subclass of this class is attached to an instance of   pcimPolicyInstance, it represents a reusable policy action.   Since all of the classes to which subclasses of this auxiliary class   may be attached are derived from the pcimPolicy class, the attributes   of the pcimPolicy class will already be defined for the entries to   which these subclasses attach.  Thus, this class is derived directly   from "top".Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 41]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.14 NAME 'pcimActionAuxClass'            DESC 'A class representing an action to be performed as a                  result of a policy rule.'            SUP top            AUXILIARY     )5.11.  The Auxiliary Class pcimActionVendorAuxClass   The purpose of this class is to provide a general extension mechanism   for representing policy actions that have not been modeled with   specific properties.  Instead, its two properties are used to define   the content and format of the action, as explained below.   As its name suggests, this class is intended for vendor-specific   extensions that are not amenable to using the standard pcimAction   class.  Standardized extensions SHOULD NOT use this class.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.15 NAME 'pcimActionVendorAuxClass'            DESC 'A class that defines a registered means to describe a                  policy action.'            SUP pcimActionAuxClass            AUXILIARY            MAY ( pcimVendorActionData $ pcimVendorActionEncoding )     )   The pcimVendorActionData attribute is a multi-valued attribute.  It   provides a general mechanism for representing policy actions that   have not been modeled as specific attributes.  This information is   encoded in a set of octet strings.  The format of the octet strings   is identified by the OID stored in the pcimVendorActionEncoding   attribute.  This attribute is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.33            NAME 'pcimVendorActionData'            DESC ' Mechanism for representing policy actions that have                   not been modeled as specific attributes.  Their                   format is identified by the OID stored in the                   attribute pcimVendorActionEncoding.'            EQUALITY octetStringMatch            ORDERING octetStringOrderingMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 42]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The pcimVendorActionEncoding attribute is used to identify the format   and semantics for the pcimVendorActionData attribute.  This attribute   is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.34            NAME 'pcimVendorActionEncoding'            DESC 'An OID identifying the format and semantics for the                  pcimVendorActionData attribute of this instance.'            EQUALITY objectIdentifierMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38            SINGLE-VALUE     )5.12.  The Class pcimPolicyInstance   This class is not defined in the PCIM.  Its role is to serve as a   structural class to which auxiliary classes representing policy   information are attached when the information is reusable.  For   auxiliary classes representing policy conditions and policy actions,   there are alternative structural classes that may be used.  SeeSection 4.4 for a complete discussion of reusable policy conditions   and actions, and of the role that this class plays in how they are   represented.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.16 NAME 'pcimPolicyInstance'            DESC 'A structural class to which aux classes containing                  reusable policy information can be attached.'            SUP pcimPolicy            MAY ( pcimPolicyInstanceName )     )   The pcimPolicyInstanceName attribute is used to define a   user-friendly name of this class, and may be used as a naming   attribute if desired.  It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.35 NAME 'pcimPolicyInstanceName'            DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy instance.'            EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch            ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch            SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15            SINGLE-VALUE     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 43]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of   pcimPolicyInstance to have attached to it either instances of one or   more of the auxiliary object classes pcimConditionAuxClass and   pcimActionAuxClass.  Since these semantics do not include specifying   any properties, the content rule would not need to specify any   attributes.  Note that other content rules could be defined to enable   other policy-related auxiliary classes to be attached to   pcimPolicyInstance.   Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written.  Each   of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that   defined two important semantics.  First, each name form would   identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e.,   pcimPolicyInstanceName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for this object   class.  Second, each name form would require that an instance of the   pcimPolicyInstance class have as its superior an instance of the   pcimRepository class.  This structure rule SHOULD also include a   superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning ofsection 5).5.13.  The Auxiliary Class pcimElementAuxClass   This class introduces no additional attributes, beyond those defined   in the class pcimPolicy from which it is derived.  Its role is to   "tag" an instance of a class defined outside the realm of policy   information as represented by PCIM as being nevertheless relevant to   a policy specification.  This tagging can potentially take place at   two levels:   -   Every instance to which pcimElementAuxClass is attached becomes       an instance of the class pcimPolicy, since pcimElementAuxClass is       a subclass of pcimPolicy.  Searching for object       will return the instance.  (As noted earlier,       this approach does NOT work for some directory implementations.       To accommodate these implementations, policy-related entries       SHOULD be tagged with the pcimKeyword "POLICY".)   -   With the pcimKeywords attribute that it inherits from pcimPolicy,       an instance to which pcimElementAuxClass is attached can be       tagged as being relevant to a particular type or category of       policy information, using standard keywords,       administrator-defined keywords, or both.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.17 NAME 'pcimElementAuxClass'            DESC 'An auxiliary class used to tag instances of classes                  defined outside the realm of policy as relevant to a                  particular policy specification.'Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 44]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004            SUP pcimPolicy            AUXILIARY     )5.14.  The Three Policy Repository Classes   These classes provide a container for reusable policy information,   such as reusable policy conditions and/or reusable policy actions.   This document is concerned with mapping just the properties that   appear in these classes.  Conceptually, this may be thought of as a   special location in the DIT where policy information may reside.   Since pcimRepository is derived from the class dlm1AdminDomain   defined in reference [6], this specification has a normative   dependency on that element of reference [6] (as well as on its entire   derivation hierarchy, which also appears in reference [6]).  To   maximize flexibility, the pcimRepository class is defined as   abstract.  A subclass pcimRepositoryAuxClass provides for auxiliary   attachment to another entry, while a structural subclass   pcimRepositoryInstance is available to represent a policy repository   as a standalone entry.   The definition for the pcimRepository class is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.18 NAME 'pcimRepository'            DESC 'A container for reusable policy information.'            SUP dlm1AdminDomain            ABSTRACT            MAY ( pcimRepositoryName )     )   The pcimRepositoryName attribute is used to define a user-friendly   name of this class, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired.   It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.36 NAME 'pcimRepositoryName'            DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy repository.'            EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch            ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch            SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15            SINGLE-VALUE     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 45]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The two subclasses of pcimRepository are defined as follows.  First,   the pcimRepositoryAuxClass is an auxiliary class that can be used to   aggregate reusable policy information.  It is defined as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.19 NAME 'pcimRepositoryAuxClass'            DESC 'An auxiliary class that can be used to aggregate                  reusable policy information.'            SUP pcimRepository            AUXILIARY     )   In cases where structural classes are needed instead of an auxiliary   class, the pcimRepositoryInstance class is a structural class that   can be used to aggregate reusable policy information.  It is defined   as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.20 NAME 'pcimRepositoryInstance'            DESC 'A structural class that can be used to aggregate                  reusable policy information.'            SUP pcimRepository            STRUCTURAL     )   Three separate DIT structure rules could be written for this class.   Each of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form   that enabled an instance of the pcimRepository class to be named   under any superior using one of the three possible naming attributes   (i.e., pcimRepositoryName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys).  This structure   rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the   beginning ofsection 5).5.15.  The Auxiliary Class pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass   This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that   references a set of objects that are at the root of DIT subtrees   containing policy-related information.  By attaching this attribute   to instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a   flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that   allows a client to locate and retrieve the policy information   relevant to it.   It is intended that these entries are placed in the DIT such that   well-known DNs can be used to reference a well-known structural entry   that has the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass attached to it.  In effect, this   defines a set of entry points.  Each of these entry points can   contain and/or reference all related policy entries forStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 46]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   any well-known policy domains.  The pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass functions   as a tag to identify portions of the DIT that contain policy   information.   This object does not provide the semantic linkages between individual   policy objects, such as those between a policy group and the policy   rules that belong to it.  Its only role is to enable efficient bulk   retrieval of policy-related objects, as described inSection 4.5.   Once the objects have been retrieved, a directory client can   determine the semantic linkages by following references contained in   multi-valued attributes, such as pcimRulesAuxContainedSet.   Since policy-related objects will often be included in the DIT   subtree beneath an object to which this auxiliary class is attached,   a client SHOULD request the policy-related objects from the subtree   under the object with these references at the same time that it   requests the references themselves.   Since clients are expected to behave in this way, the policy   administrator SHOULD make sure that this subtree does not contain so   many objects unrelated to policy that an initial search done in this   way results in a performance problem.  The pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass   SHOULD NOT be attached to the partition root for a large directory   partition containing a relatively few number of policy-related   objects along with a large number of objects unrelated to policy   (again, "policy" here refers to the PCIM, not the X.501, definition   and use of "policy").  A better approach would be to introduce a   container object immediately below the partition root, attach   pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass to this container object, and then place all   of the policy-related objects in that subtree.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.21 NAME 'pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass'            DESC 'An auxiliary class providing DN references to roots of                  DIT subtrees containing policy-related objects.'            SUP top            AUXILIARY            MAY ( pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet )     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 47]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The attribute pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set   of DN references to instances of one or more objects under which   policy-related information is present.  The objects referenced may or   may not themselves contain policy-related information.  The attribute   definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.37            NAME 'pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet'            DESC 'DNs of objects that serve as roots for DIT subtrees                  containing policy-related objects.'            EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12     )   Note that the cn attribute does NOT need to be defined for this   class. This is because an auxiliary class is used as a means to   collect common attributes and treat them as properties of an object.   A good analogy is a #include file, except that since an auxiliary   class is a class, all the benefits of a class (e.g., inheritance) can   be applied to an auxiliary class.5.16.  The Auxiliary Class pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass   This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that   references a set of pcimGroups.  By attaching this attribute to   instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a   flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that   allows a client to locate and retrieve the pcimGroups relevant to it.   As is the case with pcimRules, a policy administrator might have   several different references to a pcimGroup in the overall directory   structure. The pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass is the mechanism that   makes it possible for the policy administrator to define all these   different references.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.22 NAME 'pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass'            DESC 'An auxiliary class used to bind pcimGroups to an                  appropriate container object.'            SUP top            AUXILIARY            MAY ( pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet )     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 48]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The attribute pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set of   references to instances of one or more pcimGroups associated with the   instance of a structural class to which this attribute has been   appended.   The attribute definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.38            NAME 'pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet'            DESC 'DNs of pcimGroups associated in some way with the                  instance to which this attribute has been appended.'            EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12     )   Note that the cn attribute does NOT have to be defined for this class   for the same reasons as those given for the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass   insection 5.15.5.17.  The Auxiliary Class pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass   This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that   references a set of pcimRules.  By attaching this attribute to   instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a   flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that   allows a client to locate and retrieve the pcimRules relevant to it.   A policy administrator might have several different references to a   pcimRule in the overall directory structure.  For example, there   might be references to all pcimRules for traffic originating in a   particular subnet from a directory entry that represents that subnet.   At the same time, there might be references to all pcimRules related   to a particular DiffServ setting from an instance of a pcimGroup   explicitly introduced as a container for DiffServ-related pcimRules.   The pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass is the mechanism that makes it   possible for the policy administrator to define all these separate   references.   The class definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.1.23 NAME 'pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass'            DESC 'An auxiliary class used to bind pcimRules to an                  appropriate container object.'            SUP top            AUXILIARY            MAY ( pcimRulesAuxContainedSet )     )Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 49]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The attribute pcimRulesAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set of   references to one or more instances of pcimRules associated with the   instance of a structural class to which this attribute has been   appended.  The attribute definition is as follows:     ( 1.3.6.1.1.6.2.39            NAME 'pcimRulesAuxContainedSet'            DESC 'DNs of pcimRules associated in some way with the                  instance to which this attribute has been appended.'            EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch            SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12     )   The cn attribute does NOT have to be defined for this class for the   same reasons as those given for the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass insection 5.15.6.  Extending the Classes Defined in This Document   The following subsections provide general guidance on how to create a   domain-specific schema derived from this document, discuss how the   vendor classes in the PCLS should be used, and explain how   policyTimePeriodConditions are related to other policy conditions.6.1.  Subclassing pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass   InSection 4.4, there is a discussion of how, by representing policy   conditions and policy actions as auxiliary classes in a schema, the   flexibility is retained to instantiate a particular condition or   action as either rule-specific or reusable.  This flexibility is lost   if a condition or action class is defined as structural rather than   auxiliary.  For standardized schemata, this document specifies that   domain-specific information MUST be expressed in auxiliary subclasses   of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass.  It is RECOMMENDED   that non-standardized schemata follow this practice as well.6.2.  Using the Vendor Policy Attributes   As discussedSection 5.9, the attributes pcimVendorConstraintData and   pcimVendorConstraintEncoding are included in the   pcimConditionVendorAuxClass to provide a mechanism for representing   vendor-specific policy conditions that are not amenable to being   represented with the pcimCondition class (or its subclasses).  The   attributes pcimVendorActionData and pcimVendorActionEncoding in the   pcimActionVendorAuxClass class play the same role with respect to   actions.  This enables interoperability between different vendors who   could not otherwise interoperate.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 50]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   For example, imagine a network composed of access devices from vendor   A, edge and core devices from vendor B, and a policy server from   vendor C. It is desirable for this policy server to be able to   configure and manage all of the devices from vendors A and B.   Unfortunately, these devices will in general have little in common   (e.g., different mechanisms, different ways for controlling those   mechanisms, different operating systems, different commands, and so   forth).  The extension conditions provide a way for vendor-specific   commands to be encoded as octet strings, so that a single policy   server can commonly manage devices from different vendors.6.3.  Using Time Validity Periods   Time validity periods are defined as an auxiliary subclass of   pcimConditionAuxClass, called pcimTPCAuxClass.  This is to allow   their inclusion in the AND/OR condition definitions for a pcimRule.   Care should be taken not to subclass pcimTPCAuxClass to add   domain-specific condition properties.   For example, it would be incorrect to add IPsec- or QoS-specific   condition properties to the pcimTPCAuxClass class, just because IPsec   or QoS includes time in its condition definition.  The correct   subclassing would be to create IPsec or QoS-specific subclasses of   pcimConditionAuxClass and then combine instances of these   domain-specific condition classes with the appropriate validity   period criteria.  This is accomplished using the AND/OR association   capabilities for policy conditions in pcimRules.7.  Security Considerations   The PCLS, presented in this document, provides a mapping of the   object-oriented model for describing policy information (PCIM) into a   data model that forms the basic framework for describing the   structure of policy data, in the case where the policy repository   takes the form of an LDAP-accessible directory.   PCLS is not intended to represent any particular system design or   implementation.  PCLS is not directly useable in a real world system,   without the discipline-specific mappings that are works in progress   in the Policy Framework Working Group of the IETF.   These other derivative documents, which use PCIM and its   discipline-specific extensions as a base, will need to convey more   specific security considerations (refer toRFC 3060 for more   information.)Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 51]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   The reason that PCLS, as defined here, is not representative of any   real-world system, is that its object classes were designed to be   independent of any specific discipline, or policy domain.  For   example, DiffServ and IPsec represent two different policy domains.   Each document that extends PCIM to one of these domains will derive   subclasses from the classes and relationships defined in PCIM, in   order to represent extensions of a generic model to cover specific   technical domains.   PCIM-derived documents will thus subclass the PCIM classes into   classes specific to each technical policy domain (QOS, IPsec, etc.),   which will, in turn, be mapped, to directory-specific schemata   consistent with the PCLS documented here.   Even though discipline-specific security requirements are not   appropriate for PCLS, specific security requirements MUST be defined   for each operational real-world application of PCIM.  Just as there   will be a wide range of operational, real-world systems using PCIM,   there will also be a wide range of security requirements for these   systems.  Some operational, real-world systems that are deployed   using PCLS may have extensive security requirements that impact   nearly all object classes utilized by such a system, while other   systems' security requirements might have very little impact.   The derivative documents, discussed above, will create the context   for applying operational, real-world, system-level security   requirements against the various models that derive from PCIM,   consistent with PCLS.   In some real-world scenarios, the values associated with certain   properties, within certain instantiated object classes, may represent   information associated with scarce, and/or costly (and therefore   valuable) resources.  It may be the case that these values must not   be disclosed to, or manipulated by, unauthorized parties.   Since this document forms the basis for the representation of a   policy data model in a specific format (an LDAP-accessible   directory), it is herein appropriate to reference the data   model-specific tools and mechanisms that are available for achieving   the authentication and authorization implicit in a requirement that   restricts read and/or read- write access to these values stored in a   directory.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 52]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   General LDAP security considerations apply, as documented inRFC 3377   [2]. LDAP-specific authentication and authorization tools and   mechanisms are found in the following standards track documents,   which are appropriate for application to the management of security   applied to policy data models stored in an LDAP-accessible directory:     -RFC 2829 (Authentication Methods for LDAP)     -RFC 2830 (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension         for Transport Layer Security)   Any identified security requirements that are not dealt with in the   appropriate discipline-specific information model documents, or in   this document, MUST be dealt with in the derivative data model   documents which are specific to each discipline.8.  IANA Considerations   Refer toRFC 3383, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)   Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)"   [16].8.1.  Object Identifiers   The IANA has registered an LDAP Object Identifier for use in this   technical specification according to the following template:   Subject: Request for LDAP OID Registration   Person & email address to contact for further information:      Bob Moore (remoore@us.ibm.com)   Specification:RFC 3703   Author/Change Controller: IESG   Comments:      The assigned OID will be used as a base for identifying      a number of schema elements defined in this document.   IANA has assigned an OID of 1.3.6.1.1.6 with the name of pcimSchema   to this registration as recorded in the following registry:http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers8.2.  Object Identifier Descriptors   The IANA has registered the LDAP Descriptors used in this technical   specification as detailed in the following template:   Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration Update   Descriptor (short name): see comment   Object Identifier: see commentStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 53]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   Person & email address to contact for further information:      Bob Moore (remoore@us.ibm.com)   Usage: see comment   Specification:RFC 3703   Author/Change Controller: IESG   Comments:   The following descriptors have been added:   NAME                            Type    OID   --------------                  ----    ------------   pcimPolicy                      O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.1   pcimGroup                       O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.2   pcimGroupAuxClass               O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.3   pcimGroupInstance               O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.4   pcimRule                        O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.5   pcimRuleAuxClass                O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.6   pcimRuleInstance                O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.7   pcimRuleConditionAssociation    O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.8   pcimRuleValidityAssociation     O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.9   pcimRuleActionAssociation       O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.10   pcimConditionAuxClass           O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.11   pcimTPCAuxClass                 O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.12   pcimConditionVendorAuxClass     O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.13   pcimActionAuxClass              O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.14   pcimActionVendorAuxClass        O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.15   pcimPolicyInstance              O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.16   pcimElementAuxClass             O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.17   pcimRepository                  O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.18   pcimRepositoryAuxClass          O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.19   pcimRepositoryInstance          O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.20   pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass         O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.21   pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass    O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.22   pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass     O       1.3.6.1.1.6.1.23   pcimKeywords                    A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.3   pcimGroupName                   A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.4   pcimRuleName                    A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.5   pcimRuleEnabled                 A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.6   pcimRuleConditionListType       A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.7   pcimRuleConditionList           A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.8   pcimRuleActionList              A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.9   pcimRuleValidityPeriodList      A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.10   pcimRuleUsage                   A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.11   pcimRulePriority                A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.12   pcimRuleMandatory               A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.13   pcimRuleSequencedActions        A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.14   pcimRoles                       A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.15   pcimConditionGroupNumber        A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.16Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 54]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   NAME                            Type    OID   --------------                  ----    ------------   pcimConditionNegated            A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.17   pcimConditionName               A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.18   pcimConditionDN                 A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.19   pcimValidityConditionName       A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.20   pcimTimePeriodConditionDN       A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.21   pcimActionName                  A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.22   pcimActionOrder                 A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.23   pcimActionDN                    A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.24   pcimTPCTime                     A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.25   pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask          A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.26   pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask           A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.27   pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask            A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.28   pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask            A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.29   pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime           A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.30   pcimVendorConstraintData        A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.31   pcimVendorConstraintEncoding    A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.32   pcimVendorActionData            A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.33   pcimVendorActionEncoding        A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.34   pcimPolicyInstanceName          A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.35   pcimRepositoryName              A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.36   pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet     A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.37   pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet       A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.38   pcimRulesAuxContainedSet        A       1.3.6.1.1.6.2.39   where Type A is Attribute, Type O is ObjectClass   These assignments are recorded in the following registry:http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldap-parametersStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 55]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 20049.  Acknowledgments   We would like to thank Kurt Zeilenga, Roland Hedburg, and Steven Legg   for doing a review of this document and making many helpful   suggestions and corrections.   Several of the policy classes in this model first appeared in early   IETF drafts on IPsec policy and QoS policy.  The authors of these   drafts were Partha Bhattacharya, Rob Adams, William Dixon, Roy   Pereira, Raju Rajan, Jean-Christophe Martin, Sanjay Kamat, Michael   See, Rajiv Chaudhury, Dinesh Verma, George Powers, and Raj Yavatkar.   This document is closely aligned with the work being done in the   Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) Policy and Networks working   groups.  We would especially like to thank Lee Rafalow, Glenn Waters,   David Black, Michael Richardson, Mark Stevens, David Jones, Hugh   Mahon, Yoram Snir, and Yoram Ramberg for their helpful comments.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 56]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 200410.  Appendix:Constructing the Value of orderedCIMKeys   This appendix is non-normative, and is included in this document as a   guide to implementers that wish to exchange information between CIM   schemata and LDAP schemata.   Within a CIM name space, the naming is basically flat; all instances   are identified by the values of their key properties, and each   combination of key values must be unique.  A limited form of   hierarchical naming is available in CIM, however, by using weak   associations: since a weak association involves propagation of key   properties and their values from the superior object to the   subordinate one, the subordinate object can be thought of as being   named "under" the superior object.  Once they have been propagated,   however, propagated key properties and their values function in   exactly the same way that native key properties and their values do   in identifying a CIM instance.   The CIM mapping document [6] introduces a special attribute,   orderedCIMKeys, to help map from the CIM_ManagedElement class to the   LDAP class dlm1ManagedElement.  This attribute SHOULD only be used in   an environment where it is necessary to map between an   LDAP-accessible directory and a CIM repository.  For an LDAP   environment, other LDAP naming attributes are defined (i.e., cn and a   class-specific naming attribute) that SHOULD be used instead.   The role of orderedCIMKeys is to represent the information necessary   to correlate an entry in an LDAP-accessible directory with an   instance in a CIM name space.  Depending on how naming of CIM-related   entries is handled in an LDAP directory, the value of orderedCIMKeys   represents one of two things:     - If the DIT hierarchy does not mirror the "weakness hierarchy" of       the CIM name space, then orderedCIMKeys represents all the       keys of the CIM instance, both native and propagated.     - If the DIT hierarchy does mirror the "weakness hierarchy" of the       CIM name space, then orderedCIMKeys may represent either all the       keys of the instance, or only the native keys.   Regardless of which of these alternatives is taken, the syntax of   orderedCIMKeys is the same - a DirectoryString of the form       <className>.<key>=<value>[,<key>=<value>]*   where the <key>=<value> elements are ordered by the names of the key   properties, according to the collating sequence for US ASCII.  The   only spaces allowed in the DirectoryString are those that fall within   a <value> element.  As with alphabetizing the key properties, theStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 57]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 2004   goal of suppressing the spaces is once again to make the results of   string operations predictable.   The values of the <value> elements are derived from the various CIM   syntaxes according to a grammar specified in [5].11.  References11.1.  Normative References   [1]   Moore, B., Ellesson,E., Strassner, J. and A. Westerinen "Policy         Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification",RFC 3060,         February 2001.   [2]   Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access         Protocol (v3): Technical Specification",RFC 3377, September         2002.   [3]   Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes,T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight         Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions",RFC 2252, December 1997.   [4]   The Directory: Models.  ITU-T Recommendation X.501, 2001.   [5]   Distributed Management Task Force, Inc., "Common Information         Model (CIM) Specification", Version 2.2, June 14, 1999.  This         document is available on the following DMTF web page:http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/CIM/DSP0004.pdf   [6]   Distributed Management Task Force, Inc., "DMTF LDAP Schema for         the CIM v2.5 Core Information Model", April 15, 2002.  This         document is available on the following DMTF web page:http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/DEN/DSP0123.pdf   [7]   Wahl, M., "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use with         LDAPv3",RFC 2256, December 1997.   [8]   The Directory: Selected Attribute Types.  ITU-T Recommendation         X.520, 2001.   [9]   Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol         (LDAP): Additional Matching Rules",RFC 3698, February 2004.   [10]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement         Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 58]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 200411.2.  Informative References   [11]  Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the         IETF Standards Process",BCP 11,RFC 2028, October 1996.   [12]  Strassner, J., policy architecture BOF presentation, 42nd IETF         Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, October 1998.  Minutes of this BOF         are available at the following location:http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/index.html.   [13]  Yavatkar, R., Guerin, R. and D. Pendarakis, "A Framework for         Policy-based Admission Control",RFC 2753, January 2000.   [14]  Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J. and R. Morgan,         "Authentication Methods for LDAP",RFC 2829, May 2000   [15]  Hodges, J., Morgan, R. and M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory         Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security",RFC 2830, May 2000.   [16]  Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)         Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol         (LDAP)",BCP 64,RFC 3383, September 2002.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 59]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 200412.  Authors' Addresses   John Strassner   Intelliden Corporation   90 South Cascade Avenue   Colorado Springs, CO  80903   Phone: +1.719.785.0648   Fax:   +1.719.785.0644   EMail: john.strassner@intelliden.com   Bob Moore   IBM Corporation   P. O. Box 12195, BRQA/B501/G206   3039 Cornwallis Rd.   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709-2195   Phone: +1 919-254-4436   Fax:   +1 919-254-6243   EMail: remoore@us.ibm.com   Ryan Moats   Lemur Networks, Inc.   15621 Drexel Circle   Omaha, NE 68135   Phone: +1-402-894-9456   EMail: rmoats@lemurnetworks.net   Ed Ellesson   3026 Carriage Trail   Hillsborough, NC 27278   Phone: +1 919-644-3977   EMail: ellesson@mindspring.comStrassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 60]

RFC 3703                Policy Core LDAP Schema            February 200413.  Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained inBCP 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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   athttp://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 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Strassner, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 61]