This is a purely informative rendering of an RFC that includes verified errata. This rendering may not be used as a reference.
The following 'Verified' errata have been incorporated in this document:
EID 65
Network Working Group K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 4532 OpenLDAP Foundation
Category: Standards Track June 2006
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
"Who am I?" 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 (2006).
Abstract
This specification provides a mechanism for Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (LDAP) clients to obtain the authorization identity
the server has associated with the user or application entity. This
mechanism is specified as an LDAP extended operation called the LDAP
"Who am I?" operation.
1. Background and Intent of Use
This specification describes a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) [RFC4510] operation that clients can use to obtain the primary
authorization identity, in its primary form, that the server has
associated with the user or application entity. The operation is
called the "Who am I?" operation.
This specification is intended to replace the existing Authorization
Identity Controls [RFC3829] mechanism, which uses Bind request and
response controls to request and return the authorization identity.
Bind controls are not protected by security layers established by the
Bind operation that includes them. While it is possible to establish
security layers using StartTLS [RFC4511][RFC4513] prior to the Bind
operation, it is often desirable to use security layers established
by the Bind operation. An extended operation sent after a Bind
operation is protected by the security layers established by the Bind
operation.
There are other cases where it is desirable to request the
authorization identity that the server associated with the client
separately from the Bind operation. For example, the "Who am I?"
operation can be augmented with a Proxied Authorization Control
[RFC4370] to determine the authorization identity that the server
associates with the identity asserted in the Proxied Authorization
Control. The "Who am I?" operation can also be used prior to the
Bind operation.
Servers often associate multiple authorization identities with the
client, and each authorization identity may be represented by
multiple authzId [RFC4513] strings. This operation requests and
returns the authzId that the server considers primary. In the
specification, the term "the authorization identity" and "the
authzId" are generally to be read as "the primary authorization
identity" and the "the primary authzId", respectively.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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. The "Who am I?" Operation
The "Who am I?" operation is defined as an LDAP Extended Operation
[RFC4511] identified by the whoamiOID Object Identifier (OID). This
section details the syntax of the operation's whoami request and
response messages.
whoamiOID ::= "1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.11.3"
2.1. The whoami Request
The whoami request is an ExtendedRequest with a requestName field
containing the whoamiOID OID and an absent requestValue field. For
example, a whoami request could be encoded as the sequence of octets
(in hex):
30 1e 02 01 02 77 19 80 17 31 2e 33 2e 36 2e 31
2e 34 2e 31 2e 34 32 30 33 2e 31 2e 31 31 2e 33
2.2. The whoami Response
The whoami response is an ExtendedResponse where the responseName
field is absent and the response field, if present, is empty or an
authzId [RFC4513]. For example, a whoami response returning the
authzId "u:xxyyz@EXAMPLE.NET" (in response to the example request)
would be encoded as the sequence of octets (in hex):
30 21 02 01 02 78 1c 0a 01 00 04 00 04 00 8b 13
75 3a 78 78 79 79 7a 40 45 58 41 4d 50 4c 45 2e
4e 45 54
3. Operational Semantics
The "Who am I?" operation provides a mechanism, a whoami Request, for
the client to request that the server return the authorization
identity it currently associates with the client. It also provides a
mechanism, a whoami Response, for the server to respond to that
request.
Servers indicate their support for this extended operation by
providing a whoamiOID object identifier as a value of the
'supportedExtension' attribute type in their root DSE. The server
SHOULD advertise this extension only when it is willing
and able to perform this operation.
EID 65 (Verified) is as follows:Section: 3
Original Text:
Servers indicate their support for this extended operation by
providing a whoamiOID object identifier as a value of the
'supportedExtension' attribute type in their root DSE. The server
SHOULD advertise this extension only when the client is willing and
^^^^^^^^^^
able to perform this operation.
Corrected Text:
Servers indicate their support for this extended operation by
providing a whoamiOID object identifier as a value of the
'supportedExtension' attribute type in their root DSE. The server
SHOULD advertise this extension only when it is willing
^^
and able to perform this operation.
Notes:
As far as I can see, the last sentence there is misleading and does not match the operational scenario; and hence, it should be clarified. According to the recommendations given, the client will not try the operation if the OID is not offered by the server, and hence the server cannot know whether the client is willing to send the whoami Request; and in this case, the *server* will perform the operation, i.e., send the whoami Response.
If the server is willing and able to provide the authorization
identity it associates with the client, the server SHALL return a
whoami Response with a success resultCode. If the server is treating
the client as an anonymous entity, the response field is present but
empty. Otherwise, the server provides the authzId [RFC4513]
representing the authorization identity it currently associates with
the client in the response field.
If the server is unwilling or unable to provide the authorization
identity it associates with the client, the server SHALL return a
whoami Response with an appropriate non-success resultCode (such as
operationsError, protocolError, confidentialityRequired,
insufficientAccessRights, busy, unavailable, unwillingToPerform, or
other) and an absent response field.
As described in [RFC4511] and [RFC4513], an LDAP session has an
"anonymous" association until the client has been successfully
authenticated using the Bind operation. Clients MUST NOT invoke the
"Who am I?" operation while any Bind operation is in progress,
including between two Bind requests made as part of a multi-stage
Bind operation. Where a whoami Request is received in violation of
this absolute prohibition, the server should return a whoami Response
with an operationsError resultCode.
4. Extending the "Who am I?" Operation with Controls
Future specifications may extend the "Who am I?" operation using the
control mechanism [RFC4511]. When extended by controls, the "Who am
I?" operation requests and returns the authorization identity the
server associates with the client in a particular context indicated
by the controls.
4.1. Proxied Authorization Control
The Proxied Authorization Control [RFC4370] is used by clients to
request that the operation it is attached to operate under the
authorization of an assumed identity. The client provides the
identity to assume in the Proxied Authorization request control. If
the client is authorized to assume the requested identity, the server
executes the operation as if the requested identity had issued the
operation.
As servers often map the asserted authzId to another identity
[RFC4513], it is desirable to request that the server provide the
authzId it associates with the assumed identity.
When a Proxied Authorization Control is be attached to the "Who am
I?" operation, the operation requests the return of the authzId the
server associates with the identity asserted in the Proxied
Authorization Control. The authorizationDenied (123) result code is
used to indicate that the server does not allow the client to assume
the asserted identity.
5. Security Considerations
Identities associated with users may be sensitive information. When
they are, security layers [RFC4511][RFC4513] should be established to
protect this information. This mechanism is specifically designed to
allow security layers established by a Bind operation to protect the
integrity and/or confidentiality of the authorization identity.
Servers may place access control or other restrictions upon the use
of this operation. As stated in Section 3, the server SHOULD
advertise this extension when it is willing and able to perform the
operation.
As with any other extended operations, general LDAP security
considerations [RFC4510] apply.
6. IANA Considerations
The OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.11.3 is used to identify the LDAP "Who am
I?" extended operation. This OID was assigned [ASSIGN] by the
OpenLDAP Foundation, under its IANA-assigned private enterprise
allocation [PRIVATE], for use in this specification.
Registration of this protocol mechanism [RFC4520] has been completed
by the IANA.
Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.11.3
Description: Who am I?
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@openldap.org>
Usage: Extended Operation
Specification: RFC 4532
Author/Change Controller: IESG
Comments: none
7. Acknowledgement
This document borrows from prior work in this area, including
"Authentication Response Control" [RFC3829] by Rob Weltman, Mark
Smith, and Mark Wahl.
The LDAP "Who am I?" operation takes it's name from the UNIX
whoami(1) command. The whoami(1) command displays the effective user
ID.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC4513] Harrison, R., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms",
RFC 4513, June 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3829] Weltman, R., Smith, M., and M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (LDAP) Authorization Identity Request and
Response Controls", RFC 3829, July 2004.
[RFC4520] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006.
[ASSIGN] OpenLDAP Foundation, "OpenLDAP OID Delegations",
http://www.openldap.org/foundation/oid-delegate.txt.
[PRIVATE] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers",
http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.
Author's Address
Kurt D. Zeilenga
OpenLDAP Foundation
EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
Full Copyright Statement
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.
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 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-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).