INTERNET-DRAFT Kurt D. Zeilenga
Intended Category: Standard Track OpenLDAP Foundation
Expires in six months 5 March 2006
LDAP Transactions
<draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07.txt>
Status of Memo
This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and
revision, submitted to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed
Standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical
discussion of this document will take place on the IETF LDAP
Extensions mailing list <ldapext@ietf.org>. Please send editorial
comments directly to the author <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>.
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have
been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware
will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material
or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved.
Please see the Full Copyright section near the end of this document
for more information.
Abstract
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) update operations, such
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07 5 March 2006
as Add, Delete, and Modify operations, have atomic, consistency,
isolation, durability (ACID) properties. Each of these update
operations act upon an entry. However, 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 and information
replication. This document defines an LDAP extension to support
transactions.
1. Overview
This document extends the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
[Roadmap] to allow clients to group a number of related update
operations [Protocol] and have them preformed as one unit of
interaction, a transaction. As with distinct update operations, each
transaction has atomic, consistency, isolation, and durability
([ACID]) properties.
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
transaction using the Transaction Specification control. The End
Transaction is used to settle (commit or abort) the transaction. The
Aborted Tranaction Notice is used notify the client 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 BCP 14 [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 5.2 of [Protocol].
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
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07 5 March 2006
A Start Transaction Request is an LDAPMessage of CHOICE extendedReq
where the requestName is IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.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 responesName is
absent. When the resultCode is success, responseValue is present and
contains a transaction identifier. Otherwise, the responseValue is
absent.
2.2. Transaction Specification Control
A Transaction Specification Control is an LDAPControl where the
controlType is IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2, the criticality is TRUE, and the
controlValue is a transaction identifer. The control is appropriate
for update requests including Add, Delete, Modify, and ModifyDN
requests [Protocol].
2.3. End Transactions Request and Response
An End Transaction Request is an LDAPMessage of CHOICE extendedReq
where the requestName is IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.3 and the requestValue is
present and contains a BER-encoded settlementValue.
settlementValue ::= 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 MessageID.
2.5. Aborted Transaction Notice
The Aborted Transaction Notice is an Unsolicited Notification message
where the responseName is IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.4 and responseValue is
present and contains a transaction identifier.
3. An LDAP Transaction
3.1. Extension Discovery
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07 5 March 2006
To allow clients to discover support for this extension, servers
implementing this specification SHOULD publish IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1 and
IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.3 as values of the 'supportedExtension' attribute
[Models] within the Root DSE, and publish the IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2 as a
value of the 'supportedControl' attribute [Models] of the Root DSE.
A server MAY choose to advertise this extension only when the client
is authorized to use it.
3.2. Starting an Transactions
A client wishing to preform a sequence of directory updates as an
transaction issues a Start Transaction Request. A server which 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. Otherwise, the server responds with a
Start Transaction Response wth a result code other than success
indicating the nature of the failure.
The transaction identifier provided upon successful start of a
transaction is used in subseqent protocol messages to identify this
transaction.
3.3. Specification of a Transaction
The client then may issue may issue one or more update (add, delete,
modify, modifyDN) requests, each with a Transaction Specification
control containing the transaction identifier indicating the updates
are to processed as part of the transaction. Each of these update
request 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 approrpiate response to the request with a resultCode indicating
the nature of the failure. Otherwise, the server immediately returns
success 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.
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07 5 March 2006
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 which are
part of the transaction) and indicate that it has done so by returning
an End Transaction response with a resultCode of success.
Upon receipt of a request to commit the transaction, the server
processes all update operations of the transaction as one atomic,
isolated 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 and no responseValue
to indicate all the requested updates were applied. Otherwise, the
server returns an End Transaction with an non-success resultCode
indicating the nature of the failure. If the failure is associated
with a particular update request, a responseValue containing its
MessageID is returned. If the failure was not associated with any
particular update request, no responseValue is returned.
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.
4. Distributed Directory Considerations
The LDAP/X.500 models provide for distributed directory operations
including server-side chaining and client-side chasing of operations.
This document does not preclude servers from chaining operations which
are part of a transaction. However, if a server does allow such
chaining, it MUST ensure that transaction semantics are provided.
This mechanism defined by this document does not support client-side
chasing. Grouping cookies used to identify the transaction are
specific to a particular client/server session.
The LDAP/X.500 models provide for a single-master/multiple-shadow
replication architecture. This document states no requirement that
changes made to the directory based upon processing a transaction be
replicated as one atomic action. That is, the client SHOULD NOT
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07 5 March 2006
assume tight data consistency nor fast data convergence at shadow
servers unless they have prior knowledge that such service is
provided. Though this mechanism could be used to support replication,
use in replication is not described in this document.
The LDAP/X.500 models do not currently support a multi-master
replication architecture and, hence, not considered by this
specification.
5. Security Considerations
Transactions mechanisms may be the target of denial of service
attacks. Implementors should provide safeguards to ensure these
mechanisms are not abused.
General security considerations [Roadmap], especially associated with
update operations [Protocol], apply to this extension.
6. IANA Considerations
In accordance with [BCP64bis], it is requested that Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) make the following assignments.
6.1. Object Identifier
Assignment of an LDAP Object Identifier to identify the protocol
elements specified in this document this document is requested.
Subject: Request for LDAP Object Identifier Registration
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Specification: RFC XXXX
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments: Identifies protocol elements for LDAP Transactions
6.2. LDAP Protocol Mechanism
Registration of the protocol mechanisms specified in this document is
requested.
Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
Object Identifier: see table
Description: see table
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07 5 March 2006
Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@openldap.org>
Specification: RFC XXXX
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments:
Object Identifier Type Description
------------------- ---- -----------------------------------------
IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1 E Start Transaction Extended Request
IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2 C Transaction Specification Control
IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.3 E End Transaction Extended Request
7. Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions made by members
of the Internet Engineering Task Force.
8. Author's Address
Kurt D. Zeilenga
OpenLDAP Foundation
Email: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
9. References
[[Note to the RFC Editor: please replace the citation tags used in
referencing Internet-Drafts with tags of the form RFCnnnn where
possible.]]
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14 (also RFC 2119), March 1997.
[Roadmap] Zeilenga, K. (editor), "LDAP: Technical Specification
Road Map", draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt, a work in
progress.
[Protocol] Sermersheim, J. (editor), "LDAP: The Protocol",
draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-xx.txt, a work in progress.
[Models] Zeilenga, K. (editor), "LDAP: Directory Information
Models", draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-xx.txt, a work in
progress.
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07 5 March 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
[ACID] Section 4 of ISO/IEC 10026-1:1992.
[BCP64bis] Zeilenga, K., "IANA Considerations for LDAP",
draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-xx.txt, a work in progress.
[X.500] International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The Directory
-- Overview of concepts, models and services,"
X.500(1993) (also ISO/IEC 9594-1:1994).
[X.501] International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The Directory
-- Models," X.501(1993) (also ISO/IEC 9594-2:1994).
Intellectual Property Rights
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
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.
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn-07 5 March 2006
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.
Full Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 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.
Zeilenga LDAP Transactions [Page 9]
|
