Network Working Group K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 3909 OpenLDAP Foundation
Category: Standards Track October 2004
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Cancel Operation
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This specification describes a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) extended operation to cancel (or abandon) an outstanding
operation. Unlike the LDAP Abandon operation, but like the X.511
Directory Access Protocol (DAP) Abandon operation, this operation has
a response which provides an indication of its outcome.
1. Background and Intent of Use
The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [RFC3377] provides
an Abandon operation [RFC2251] which clients may use to cancel other
operations. The Abandon operation does not have a response and
requires no response from the abandoned operation. These semantics
provide the client with no clear indication of the outcome of the
Abandon operation.
The X.511 Directory Access Protocol (DAP) [X.511] provides an Abandon
operation which has a response and also requires the abandoned
operation to return a response indicating it was canceled. The LDAP
Cancel operation is modeled after the DAP Abandon operation.
The LDAP Cancel operation SHOULD be used instead of the LDAP Abandon
operation when the client needs an indication of the outcome. This
operation may be used to cancel both interrogation and update
operations.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3909 LDAP Cancel Operation October 2004
Protocol elements are described using ASN.1 [X.680] with implicit
tags. The term "BER-encoded" means the element is to be encoded
using the Basic Encoding Rules [X.690] under the restrictions
detailed in Section 5.1 of [RFC2251].
DSA stands for Directory System Agent (or server).
DSE stands for DSA-specific Entry.
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 in BCP 14 [RFC2119].
2. Cancel Operation
The Cancel operation is defined as an LDAP Extended Operation
[RFC2251, Section 4.12] identified by the object identifier
1.3.6.1.1.8. This section details the syntax of the Cancel request
and response messages and defines additional LDAP resultCodes.
2.1. Cancel Request
The Cancel request is an ExtendedRequest with the requestName field
containing 1.3.6.1.1.8 and a requestValue field which contains a
BER-encoded cancelRequestValue value.
cancelRequestValue ::= SEQUENCE {
cancelID MessageID
-- MessageID is as defined in [RFC2251]
}
The cancelID field contains the message ID associated with the
operation to be canceled.
2.2. Cancel Response
A Cancel response is an ExtendedResponse where the responseName and
response fields are absent.
2.3. Additional Result Codes
Implementations of this specification SHALL recognize the following
additional resultCode values:
canceled (118)
noSuchOperation (119)
tooLate (120)
cannotCancel (121)
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3909 LDAP Cancel Operation October 2004
3. Operational Semantics
The function of the Cancel Operation is to request that the server
cancel an outstanding operation issued within the same session.
The client requests the cancelation of an outstanding operation by
issuing a Cancel Response with a cancelID set to the message ID of
the outstanding operation. The Cancel Request itself has a distinct
message ID. Clients SHOULD NOT request the cancelation of an
operation multiple times.
If the server is willing and able to cancel the outstanding operation
identified by the cancelId, the server SHALL return a Cancel Response
with a success resultCode, and the canceled operation SHALL fail with
canceled resultCode. Otherwise the Cancel Response SHALL have a
non-success resultCode and SHALL NOT have an impact upon the
outstanding operation (if it exists).
The protocolError resultCode is returned if the server is unable to
parse the requestValue or the requestValue is absent,
The noSuchOperation resultCode is returned if the server has no
knowledge of the operation requested for cancelation.
The cannotCancel resultCode is returned if the identified operation
does not support cancelation or the cancel operation could not be
performed. The following classes of operations are not cancelable:
- operations which have no response,
- operations which create, alter, or destroy authentication and/or
authorization associations,
- operations which establish, alter, or tear-down security services,
and
- operations which abandon or cancel other operations.
Specifically, the Abandon, Bind, Start TLS [RFC2830], Unbind, and
Cancel operations are not cancelable.
The Cancel operation cannot be abandoned.
The tooLate resultCode is returned to indicate that it is too late to
cancel the outstanding operation. For example, the server may return
tooLate for a request to cancel an outstanding modify operation which
has already committed updates to the underlying data store.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3909 LDAP Cancel Operation October 2004
Servers SHOULD indicate their support for this extended operation by
providing 1.3.6.1.1.8 as a value of the 'supportedExtension'
attribute type in their root DSE. A server MAY choose to advertise
this extension only when the client is authorized to use it.
4. Security Considerations
This operation is intended to allow a user to cancel operations they
previously issued during the current LDAP association. In certain
cases, such as when the Proxy Authorization Control is in use,
different outstanding operations may be processed under different
LDAP associations. Servers MUST NOT allow a user to cancel an
operation belonging to another user.
Some operations should not be cancelable for security reasons. This
specification disallows the cancelation of the Bind operation and
Start TLS extended operation so as to avoid adding complexity to
authentication, authorization, and security layer semantics.
Designers of future extended operations and/or controls should
disallow abandonment and cancelation when appropriate.
5. IANA Considerations
The following values [RFC3383] have been registered by the IANA.
5.1. Object Identifier
The IANA has registered upon Standards Action the LDAP Object
Identifier 1.3.6.1.1.8 to identify the LDAP Cancel Operation as
defined in this document.
Subject: Request for LDAP Object Identifier Registration
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]>
Specification: RFC 3909
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments:
Identifies the LDAP Cancel Operation
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3909 LDAP Cancel Operation October 2004
5.2. LDAP Protocol Mechanism
The IANA has registered upon Standards Action the LDAP Protocol
Mechanism described in this document.
Subject: LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.1.8
Description: LDAP Cancel Operation
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]>
Usage: Extended Operation
Specification: RFC 3909
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments: none
5.3. LDAP Result Codes
The IANA has registered upon Standards Action the LDAP Result Codes
described in this document.
Subject: LDAP Result Code Registration
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]>
Result Code Name: canceled (118)
Result Code Name: noSuchOperation (119)
Result Code Name: tooLate (120)
Result Code Name: cannotCancel (121)
Specification: RFC 3909
Author/Change Controller: IESG
6. Acknowledgment
The LDAP Cancel operation is modeled after the X.511 DAP Abandon
operation.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3909 LDAP Cancel Operation October 2004
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
[RFC2830] Hodges, J., Morgan, R., and M. Wahl, "Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport
Layer Security", RFC 2830, May 2000.
[RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
September 2002.
[X.680] International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
Standardization Sector, "Abstract Syntax Notation One
(ASN.1) - Specification of Basic Notation", X.680(1997)
(also ISO/IEC 8824-1:1998).
[X.690] International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
Standardization Sector, "Specification of ASN.1 encoding
rules: Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding
Rules (CER), and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)",
X.690(1997) (also ISO/IEC 8825-1:1998).
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3383] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002.
[X.511] International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
Standardization Sector, "The Directory: Abstract Service
Definition", X.511(1993).
8. Author's Address
Kurt D. Zeilenga
OpenLDAP Foundation
EMail: [email protected]
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3909 LDAP Cancel Operation October 2004
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, 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 ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC Documents can
be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
[email protected].
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 7]
|
