Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Transactions
RFC 5805
| Document | Type |
RFC - Experimental
(March 2010; Errata)
Was draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn (app)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Kurt Zeilenga | ||
| Last updated | 2018-01-30 | ||
| Stream | Independent Submission | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | ISE state | (None) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5805 (Experimental) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alexey Melnikov | ||
| Send notices to | rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org | ||
Independent Submission K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 5805 Isode Limited
Category: Experimental March 2010
ISSN: 2070-1721
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Transactions
Abstract
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) update operations, such
as Add, Delete, and Modify operations, have atomic, consistency,
isolation, durability (ACID) properties. Each of these update
operations act upon an entry. It is often desirable to update two or
more entries in a single unit of interaction, a transaction.
Transactions are necessary to support a number of applications
including resource provisioning. This document extends LDAP to
support transactions.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently
of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5805.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
1. Overview
This document extends the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) [RFC4510] to allow clients to relate a number of update
operations [RFC4511] and have them performed as one unit of
interaction, a transaction. As with distinct update operations, each
transaction has atomic, consistency, isolation, and durability (ACID)
properties [ACID].
This extension consists of two extended operations, one control, and
one unsolicited notification message. The Start Transaction
operation is used to obtain a transaction identifier. This
identifier is then attached to multiple update operations to indicate
that they belong to the transaction using the Transaction
Specification control. The End Transaction is used to settle (commit
or abort) the transaction. The Aborted Transaction Notice is
provided by the server to notify the client that the server is no
longer willing or able to process an outstanding transaction.
1.1. Conventions and Terminology
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 [RFC4511].
DSA stands for "Directory System Agent" (a server). DSE stands for
"DSA-specific entry".
2. Elements of an LDAP Transaction
2.1. Start Transaction Request and Response
A Start Transaction Request is an LDAPMessage of CHOICE extendedReq
where the requestName is 1.3.6.1.1.21.1 and the requestValue is
absent.
A Start Transaction Response is an LDAPMessage of CHOICE extendedRes
sent in response to a Start Transaction Request. Its responseName is
absent. When the resultCode is success (0), responseValue is present
and contains a transaction identifier. Otherwise, the responseValue
is absent.
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
2.2. Transaction Specification Control
A Transaction Specification Control is an LDAPControl where the
controlType is 1.3.6.1.1.21.2, the criticality is TRUE, and the
controlValue is a transaction identifier. The control is appropriate
for update requests including Add, Delete, Modify, and ModifyDN
(Rename) requests [RFC4511], as well as the Password Modify requests
[RFC3062].
As discussed in Section 4, the Transaction Specification control can
be used in conjunction with request controls appropriate for the
update request.
2.3. End Transactions Request and Response
An End Transaction Request is an LDAPMessage of CHOICE extendedReq
where the requestName is 1.3.6.1.1.21.3 and the requestValue is
present and contains a BER-encoded txnEndReq.
txnEndReq ::= SEQUENCE {
commit BOOLEAN DEFAULT TRUE,
identifier OCTET STRING }
A commit value of TRUE indicates a request to commit the transaction
identified by the identifier. A commit value of FALSE indicates a
request to abort the identified transaction.
An End Transaction Response is an LDAPMessage sent in response to a
End Transaction Request. Its response name is absent. The
responseValue when present contains a BER-encoded txnEndRes.
txnEndRes ::= SEQUENCE {
messageID MessageID OPTIONAL,
-- msgid associated with non-success resultCode
updatesControls SEQUENCE OF updateControls SEQUENCE {
messageID MessageID,
-- msgid associated with controls
controls Controls
} OPTIONAL
}
-- where MessageID and Controls are as specified in RFC 4511
The txnEndRes.messageID provides the message id of the update request
associated with a non-success response. txnEndRes.messageID is
absent when resultCode of the End Transaction Response is success
(0).
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
The txnEndRes.updatesControls provides a facility for returning
response controls that normally (i.e., in the absence of
transactions) would be returned in an update response. The
updateControls.messageID provides the message id of the update
request associated with the response controls provided in
updateControls.controls.
The txnEndRes.updatesControls is absent when there are no update
response controls to return.
If both txnEndRes.messageID and txnEndRes.updatesControl are absent,
the responseValue of the End Transaction Response is absent.
2.4. Aborted Transaction Notice
The Aborted Transaction Notice is an Unsolicited Notification message
where the responseName is 1.3.6.1.1.21.4 and responseValue is present
and contains a transaction identifier.
3. An LDAP Transaction
3.1. Extension Discovery
To allow clients to discover support for this extension, servers
implementing this specification SHOULD publish 1.3.6.1.1.21.1 and
1.3.6.1.1.21.3 as values of the 'supportedExtension' attribute
[RFC4512] within the Root DSE, and publish the 1.3.6.1.1.21.2 as a
value of the 'supportedControl' attribute [RFC4512] of the Root DSE.
A server MAY choose to advertise this extension only when the client
is authorized to use it.
3.2. Starting a Transaction
A client wishing to perform a sequence of directory updates as a
transaction issues a Start Transaction Request. A server that is
willing and able to support transactions responds to this request
with a Start Transaction Response providing a transaction identifier
and with a resultCode of success (0). Otherwise, the server responds
with a Start Transaction Response with a resultCode other than
success indicating the nature of the failure.
The transaction identifier provided upon successful start of a
transaction is used in subsequent protocol messages to identify this
transaction.
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
3.3. Specification of a Transaction
The client then can issue one or more update requests, each with a
Transaction Specification control containing the transaction
identifier indicating the updates are to be processed as part of the
transaction. Each of these update requests MUST have a different
MessageID value. If the server is unwilling or unable to attempt to
process the requested update operation as part of the transaction,
the server immediately returns the appropriate response to the
request with a resultCode indicating the nature of the failure.
Otherwise, the server immediately returns a resultCode of success (0)
and the defers further processing of the operation is then deferred
until settlement.
If the server becomes unwilling or unable to continue the
specification of a transaction, the server issues an Aborted
Transaction Notice with a non-success resultCode indicating the
nature of the failure. All operations that were to be processed as
part of the transaction are implicitly abandoned. Upon receipt of an
Aborted Transaction Notice, the client is to discontinue all use of
the transaction identifier as the transaction is null and void. Any
future use of identifier by the client will result in a response
containing a non-success resultCode.
3.4. Transaction Settlement
A client requests settlement of transaction by issuing an End
Transaction Request for the transaction indicating whether it desires
the transaction to be committed or aborted.
Upon receipt of a request to abort the transaction, the server is to
abort the identified transaction (abandoning all operations that are
part of the transaction) and indicate that it has done so by
returning an End Transaction Response with a resultCode of success
(0).
Upon receipt of a request to commit the transaction, the server
processes all update operations of the transaction as one atomic,
durable, isolated, and consistent action with each requested update
being processed in turn. Either all of the requested updates are to
be successfully applied or none of the requested are to be applied.
The server returns an End Transaction Response with a resultCode of
success (0) and no responseValue to indicate all the requested
updates were applied. Otherwise, the server returns an End
Transaction Response with a non-success resultCode indicating the
nature of the failure. If the failure is associated with a
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
particular update request, the txnEndRes.messageID in the
responseValue is the message id of this update request. If the
failure was not associated with any particular update request, no
txnEnd.messageID is provided.
There is no requirement that a server serialize transactions or
updates requested outside of a transaction. That is, a server MAY
process multiple commit requests (from one or more clients) acting
upon different sets of entries concurrently. A server MUST avoid
deadlock.
3.5. Miscellaneous Issues
Transactions cannot be nested.
Each LDAP transaction should be initiated, specified, and settled
within a stable security context. Between the Start Request and the
End Response, the peers SHOULD avoid negotiating new security
associations and/or layers.
Upon receipt of a Bind or Unbind request, the server SHALL abort any
and all outstanding transactions without notice and nullify their
identifiers.
4. Interaction with Other Extensions
The LDAP Transaction extension may be used with many but not all LDAP
control extensions designed to extend update (and possibly other)
operations. The subsections that follow discuss interaction with a
number of control extensions. Interaction with other control
extensions may be discussed in other documents, in particular in
control extension specifications.
4.1. Assertion Control
The Assertion [RFC4528] control is appropriate for use with update
requests specified as part of a transaction. The evaluation of the
assertion is performed as part of the transaction.
The Assertion control is inappropriate for use with either the Start
or End Transaction Extended operations.
4.2. ManageDsaIT Control
The ManageDsaIT [RFC3296] control is appropriate for use with update
requests specified as part of a transaction.
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
The ManageDsaIT control is inappropriate for use with either the
Start or End Transaction Extended operations.
4.4. Proxied Authorization Control
The Proxied Authorization [RFC4370] control is appropriate for use
with the Start Transaction Extended operation, but not the End
Transaction Extended operation or any update request specified as
part of a transaction.
To request that a transaction be performed under a different
authorization, the client provides a Proxied Authorization control
with the Transaction Start Request. If the client is not authorized
to assume the requested authorization identity, the server is to
return the authorizationDenied (123) resultCode in its response.
Otherwise, further processing of the request and transaction is
performed under the requested authorization identity.
Any proxied authorization request attached to an update request
specified as part of a transaction, or attached to a Transaction End
Request, is to be regarded as a protocol error.
4.5. Read Entry Controls
The Pre- and Post-Read Entry [RFC4527] request control are
appropriate for use with update requests specified as part of a
transaction.
The response control produced in response to a Pre- or Post-Read
Entry request control is returned in the txnEndRes.updatesControls
field of responseValue of the End Transaction Response.
The Pre- and Post-Read Entry controls are inappropriate for use in
the LDAPMessage.controls field of the Transaction Start and End
Request and Response messages.
5. Distributed Directory Considerations
The LDAP/X.500 models provide for distributed directory operations,
including server-side chaining and client-side chasing of referrals.
This document does not preclude servers from chaining operations that
are part of a transaction. However, if a server does attempt such
chaining, it MUST ensure that transaction semantics are provided.
The mechanism defined by this document does not support client-side
chasing. Transaction identifiers are specific to a particular LDAP
association (as established via the LDAP Bind operation).
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
The LDAP/X.500 models provide for a single-master/multiple-shadow
replication architecture. There is no requirement that changes made
to the directory based upon processing a transaction be replicated as
one atomic action. Hence, clients SHOULD NOT assume tight data
consistency nor fast data convergence of shadow copies unless they
have prior knowledge that these properties are provided. Note that
DontUseCopy control [DONTUSECOPY] may be used in conjunction with the
LDAP search request to ask for the return of the authoritative copy
of the entry.
6. Security Considerations
Transaction mechanisms may be the target of denial-of-service
attacks, especially where implementations lock shared resources for
the duration of a transaction.
General security considerations [RFC4510], especially those
associated with update operations [RFC4511], apply to this extension.
7. IANA Considerations
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has made the following
assignments.
7.1. Object Identifier
IANA has assigned an LDAP Object Identifier (21) [RFC4520] to
identify the protocol elements specified in this document.
Subject: Request for LDAP Object Identifier Registration
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM>
Specification: RFC 5805
Author/Change Controller: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM>
Comments: Identifies protocol elements for LDAP Transactions
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
7.2. LDAP Protocol Mechanism
IANA has registered the protocol mechanisms [RFC4520] specified in
this document.
Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
Object Identifier: see table
Description: see table
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM>
Specification: RFC 5805
Author/Change Controller: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM>
Comments:
Object Identifier Type Description
------------------- ---- ----------------------------------
1.3.6.1.1.21.1 E Start Transaction Extended Request
1.3.6.1.1.21.2 C Transaction Specification Control
1.3.6.1.1.21.3 E End Transaction Extended Request
1.3.6.1.1.21.4 N Aborted Transaction Notice
Legend
------------------------
C => supportedControl
E => supportedExtension
N => Unsolicited Notice
8. Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions made by Internet
Engineering Task Force participants.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3062] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP Password Modify Extended
Operation", RFC 3062, February 2001.
[RFC3296] Zeilenga, K., "Named Subordinate References in
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Directories", RFC 3296, July 2002.
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
[RFC4370] Weltman, R., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) Proxied Authorization Control", RFC 4370,
February 2006.
[RFC4510] Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC
4510, June 2006.
[RFC4511] Sermersheim, J., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.
[RFC4512] Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP): Directory Information Models", RFC
4512, June 2006.
[RFC4527] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) Read Entry Controls", RFC 4527, June 2006.
[RFC4528] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) Assertion Control", RFC 4528, June 2006.
[X.680] International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "Abstract
Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification of Basic
Notation", X.680(2002) (also ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002).
[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(2002) (also
ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002).
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4520] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006.
[ACID] "Information technology -- Open Systems Interconnection
-- Distributed Transaction Processing -- Part 1: OSI TP
Model", Section 4, ISO/IEC 10026-1:1992.
[DONTUSECOPY] Zeilenga, K., "The LDAP Don't Use Copy Control", Work
in Progress, December 2009.
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 5805 LDAP Transactions March 2010
Author's Address
Kurt D. Zeilenga
Isode Limited
EMail: Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 11]