directory-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From pamarce...@apache.org
Subject svn commit: r498673 [1/4] - in /directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help: resources/icons/ resources/images/reference/ resources/rfcs/ src/main/resources/
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:23:07 GMT
Author: pamarcelot
Date: Mon Jan 22 08:23:06 2007
New Revision: 498673

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=498673
Log:
Finalizing Schemas Editor User's Guide. Moving old help contents into the new docbook system. Adding RFCs to the references section. Removing section related to the RCP Application in the Schemas Editor User's Guide.

Added:
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/images/reference/preferences_schemas.png
      - copied unchanged from r498624, directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/images/reference/preferences_schema.png
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/rfc2252.txt
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/rfc4517.txt
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/rfc4519.txt
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/rfc4524.txt
Removed:
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/icons/
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/images/reference/preferences_help.png
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/images/reference/preferences_help_server.png
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/images/reference/preferences_schema.png
Modified:
    directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/src/main/resources/0_index.xml

Added: directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/rfc2252.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/rfc2252.txt?view=auto&rev=498673
==============================================================================
--- directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/rfc2252.txt (added)
+++ directory/ldapstudio/trunk/ldapstudio-schemas-help/resources/rfcs/rfc2252.txt Mon Jan 22 08:23:06 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,1795 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                            M. Wahl
+Request for Comments: 2252                           Critical Angle Inc.
+Category: Standards Track                                    A. Coulbeck
+                                                              Isode Inc.
+                                                                T. Howes
+                                           Netscape Communications Corp.
+                                                                S. Kille
+                                                           Isode Limited
+                                                           December 1997
+
+
+              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
+                      Attribute Syntax Definitions
+
+1. 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 (1997).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+IESG Note
+
+   This document describes a directory access protocol that provides
+   both read and update access.  Update access requires secure
+   authentication, but this document does not mandate implementation of
+   any satisfactory authentication mechanisms.
+
+   In accordance with RFC 2026, section 4.4.1, this specification is
+   being approved by IESG as a Proposed Standard despite this
+   limitation, for the following reasons:
+
+   a. to encourage implementation and interoperability testing of
+      these protocols (with or without update access) before they
+      are deployed, and
+
+   b. to encourage deployment and use of these protocols in read-only
+      applications.  (e.g. applications where LDAPv3 is used as
+      a query language for directories which are updated by some
+      secure mechanism other than LDAP), and
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   c. to avoid delaying the advancement and deployment of other Internet
+      standards-track protocols which require the ability to query, but
+      not update, LDAPv3 directory servers.
+
+   Readers are hereby warned that until mandatory authentication
+   mechanisms are standardized, clients and servers written according to
+   this specification which make use of update functionality are
+   UNLIKELY TO INTEROPERATE, or MAY INTEROPERATE ONLY IF AUTHENTICATION
+   IS REDUCED TO AN UNACCEPTABLY WEAK LEVEL.
+
+   Implementors are hereby discouraged from deploying LDAPv3 clients or
+   servers which implement the update functionality, until a Proposed
+   Standard for mandatory authentication in LDAPv3 has been approved and
+   published as an RFC.
+
+2. Abstract
+
+   The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [1] requires that
+   the contents of AttributeValue fields in protocol elements be octet
+   strings.  This document defines a set of syntaxes for LDAPv3, and the
+   rules by which attribute values of these syntaxes are represented as
+   octet strings for transmission in the LDAP protocol.  The syntaxes
+   defined in this document are referenced by this and other documents
+   that define attribute types.  This document also defines the set of
+   attribute types which LDAP servers should support.
+
+3. Overview
+
+   This document defines the framework for developing schemas for
+   directories accessible via the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol.
+
+   Schema is the collection of attribute type definitions, object class
+   definitions and other information which a server uses to determine
+   how to match a filter or attribute value assertion (in a compare
+   operation) against the attributes of an entry, and whether to permit
+   add and modify operations.
+
+   Section 4 states the general requirements and notations for attribute
+   types, object classes, syntax and matching rule definitions.
+
+   Section 5 lists attributes, section 6 syntaxes and section 7 object
+   classes.
+
+   Additional documents define schemas for representing real-world
+   objects as directory entries.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+4. General Issues
+
+   This document describes encodings used in an Internet protocol.
+
+   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 [4].
+
+   Attribute Type and Object Class definitions are written in a string
+   representation of the AttributeTypeDescription and
+   ObjectClassDescription data types defined in X.501(93) [3].
+   Implementors are strongly advised to first read the description of
+   how schema is represented in X.500 before reading the rest of this
+   document.
+
+4.1. Common Encoding Aspects
+
+   For the purposes of defining the encoding rules for attribute
+   syntaxes, the following BNF definitions will be used.  They are based
+   on the BNF styles of RFC 822 [13].
+
+    a     = "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" / "g" / "h" / "i" /
+            "j" / "k" / "l" / "m" / "n" / "o" / "p" / "q" / "r" /
+            "s" / "t" / "u" / "v" / "w" / "x" / "y" / "z" / "A" /
+            "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F" / "G" / "H" / "I" / "J" /
+            "K" / "L" / "M" / "N" / "O" / "P" / "Q" / "R" / "S" /
+            "T" / "U" / "V" / "W" / "X" / "Y" / "Z"
+
+    d               = "0" / "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" /
+                      "5" / "6" / "7" / "8" / "9"
+
+    hex-digit       =  d / "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" /
+                           "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
+
+    k               = a / d / "-" / ";"
+
+    p               = a / d / """ / "(" / ")" / "+" / "," /
+                      "-" / "." / "/" / ":" / "?" / " "
+
+    letterstring    = 1*a
+
+    numericstring   = 1*d
+
+    anhstring       = 1*k
+
+    keystring       = a [ anhstring ]
+
+    printablestring = 1*p
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+    space           = 1*" "
+
+    whsp            = [ space ]
+
+    utf8            = <any sequence of octets formed from the UTF-8 [9]
+                       transformation of a character from ISO10646 [10]>
+
+    dstring         = 1*utf8
+
+    qdstring        = whsp "'" dstring "'" whsp
+
+    qdstringlist    = [ qdstring *( qdstring ) ]
+
+    qdstrings       = qdstring / ( whsp "(" qdstringlist ")" whsp )
+
+   In the following BNF for the string representation of OBJECT
+   IDENTIFIERs, descr is the syntactic representation of an object
+   descriptor, which consists of letters and digits, starting with a
+   letter.  An OBJECT IDENTIFIER in the numericoid format should not
+   have leading zeroes (e.g. "0.9.3" is permitted but "0.09.3" should
+   not be generated).
+
+   When encoding 'oid' elements in a value, the descr encoding option
+   SHOULD be used in preference to the numericoid. An object descriptor
+   is a more readable alias for a number OBJECT IDENTIFIER, and these
+   (where assigned and known by the implementation) SHOULD be used in
+   preference to numeric oids to the greatest extent possible.  Examples
+   of object descriptors in LDAP are attribute type, object class and
+   matching rule names.
+
+     oid             = descr / numericoid
+
+     descr           = keystring
+
+     numericoid      = numericstring *( "." numericstring )
+
+     woid            = whsp oid whsp
+
+     ; set of oids of either form
+     oids            = woid / ( "(" oidlist ")" )
+
+     oidlist         = woid *( "$" woid )
+
+     ; object descriptors used as schema element names
+     qdescrs         = qdescr / ( whsp "(" qdescrlist ")" whsp )
+
+     qdescrlist      = [ qdescr *( qdescr ) ]
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+     qdescr          = whsp "'" descr "'" whsp
+
+4.2. Attribute Types
+
+   The attribute types are described by sample values for the subschema
+   "attributeTypes" attribute, which is written in the
+   AttributeTypeDescription syntax.  While lines have been folded for
+   readability, the values transferred in protocol would not contain
+   newlines.
+
+   The AttributeTypeDescription is encoded according to the following
+   BNF, and the productions for oid, qdescrs and qdstring are given in
+   section 4.1.  Implementors should note that future versions of this
+   document may have expanded this BNF to include additional terms.
+   Terms which begin with the characters "X-" are reserved for private
+   experiments, and MUST be followed by a <qdstrings>.
+
+      AttributeTypeDescription = "(" whsp
+            numericoid whsp              ; AttributeType identifier
+          [ "NAME" qdescrs ]             ; name used in AttributeType
+          [ "DESC" qdstring ]            ; description
+          [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ]
+          [ "SUP" woid ]                 ; derived from this other
+                                         ; AttributeType
+          [ "EQUALITY" woid              ; Matching Rule name
+          [ "ORDERING" woid              ; Matching Rule name
+          [ "SUBSTR" woid ]              ; Matching Rule name
+          [ "SYNTAX" whsp noidlen whsp ] ; see section 4.3
+          [ "SINGLE-VALUE" whsp ]        ; default multi-valued
+          [ "COLLECTIVE" whsp ]          ; default not collective
+          [ "NO-USER-MODIFICATION" whsp ]; default user modifiable
+          [ "USAGE" whsp AttributeUsage ]; default userApplications
+          whsp ")"
+
+      AttributeUsage =
+          "userApplications"     /
+          "directoryOperation"   /
+          "distributedOperation" / ; DSA-shared
+          "dSAOperation"          ; DSA-specific, value depends on server
+
+   Servers are not required to provide the same or any text in the
+   description part of the subschema values they maintain.  Servers
+   SHOULD provide at least one of the "SUP" and "SYNTAX" fields for each
+   AttributeTypeDescription.
+
+   Servers MUST implement all the attribute types referenced in sections
+   5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   Servers MAY recognize additional names and attributes not listed in
+   this document, and if they do so, MUST publish the definitions of the
+   types in the attributeTypes attribute of their subschema entries.
+
+   Schema developers MUST NOT create attribute definitions whose names
+   conflict with attributes defined for use with LDAP in existing
+   standards-track RFCs.
+
+   An AttributeDescription can be used as the value in a NAME part of an
+   AttributeTypeDescription.  Note that these are case insensitive.
+
+   Note that the AttributeTypeDescription does not list the matching
+   rules which can can be used with that attribute type in an
+   extensibleMatch search filter.  This is done using the
+   matchingRuleUse attribute described in section 4.5.
+
+   This document refines the schema description of X.501 by requiring
+   that the syntax field in an AttributeTypeDescription be a string
+   representation of an OBJECT IDENTIFIER for the LDAP string syntax
+   definition, and an optional indication of the maximum length of a
+   value of this attribute (defined in section 4.3.2).
+
+4.3. Syntaxes
+
+   This section defines general requirements for LDAP attribute value
+   syntax encodings. All documents defining attribute syntax encodings
+   for use with LDAP are expected to conform to these requirements.
+
+   The encoding rules defined for a given attribute syntax must produce
+   octet strings.  To the greatest extent possible, encoded octet
+   strings should be usable in their native encoded form for display
+   purposes. In particular, encoding rules for attribute syntaxes
+   defining non-binary values should produce strings that can be
+   displayed with little or no translation by clients implementing LDAP.
+   There are a few cases (e.g. audio) however, when it is not sensible
+   to produce a printable representation, and clients MUST NOT assume
+   that an unrecognized syntax is a string representation.
+
+   In encodings where an arbitrary string, not a Distinguished Name, is
+   used as part of a larger production, and other than as part of a
+   Distinguished Name, a backslash quoting mechanism is used to escape
+   the following separator symbol character (such as "'", "$" or "#") if
+   it should occur in that string.  The backslash is followed by a pair
+   of hexadecimal digits representing the next character.  A backslash
+   itself in the string which forms part of a larger syntax is always
+   transmitted as '\5C' or '\5c'. An example is given in section 6.27.
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   Syntaxes are also defined for matching rules whose assertion value
+   syntax is different from the attribute value syntax.
+
+4.3.1  Binary Transfer of Values
+
+   This encoding format is used if the binary encoding is requested by
+   the client for an attribute, or if the attribute syntax name is
+   "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5".  The contents of the LDAP
+   AttributeValue or AssertionValue field is a BER-encoded instance of
+   the attribute value or a matching rule assertion value ASN.1 data
+   type as defined for use with X.500. (The first byte inside the OCTET
+   STRING wrapper is a tag octet.  However, the OCTET STRING is still
+   encoded in primitive form.)
+
+   All servers MUST implement this form for both generating attribute
+   values in search responses, and parsing attribute values in add,
+   compare and modify requests, if the attribute type is recognized and
+   the attribute syntax name is that of Binary.  Clients which request
+   that all attributes be returned from entries MUST be prepared to
+   receive values in binary (e.g. userCertificate;binary), and SHOULD
+   NOT simply display binary or unrecognized values to users.
+
+4.3.2. Syntax Object Identifiers
+
+   Syntaxes for use with LDAP are named by OBJECT IDENTIFIERs, which are
+   dotted-decimal strings.  These are not intended to be displayed to
+   users.
+
+   noidlen = numericoid [ "{" len "}" ]
+
+   len     = numericstring
+
+   The following table lists some of the syntaxes that have been defined
+   for LDAP thus far.  The H-R column suggests whether a value in that
+   syntax would likely be a human readable string.  Clients and servers
+   need not implement all the syntaxes listed here, and MAY implement
+   other syntaxes.
+
+   Other documents may define additional syntaxes.  However, the
+   definition of additional arbitrary syntaxes is strongly deprecated
+   since it will hinder interoperability: today's client and server
+   implementations generally do not have the ability to dynamically
+   recognize new syntaxes.  In most cases attributes will be defined
+   with the syntax for directory strings.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   Value being represented        H-R OBJECT IDENTIFIER
+   =================================================================
+   ACI Item                        N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.1
+   Access Point                    Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.2
+   Attribute Type Description      Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.3
+   Audio                           N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.4
+   Binary                          N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5
+   Bit String                      Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6
+   Boolean                         Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7
+   Certificate                     N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.8
+   Certificate List                N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.9
+   Certificate Pair                N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.10
+   Country String                  Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.11
+   DN                              Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
+   Data Quality Syntax             Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.13
+   Delivery Method                 Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.14
+   Directory String                Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
+   DIT Content Rule Description    Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.16
+   DIT Structure Rule Description  Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.17
+   DL Submit Permission            Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.18
+   DSA Quality Syntax              Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.19
+   DSE Type                        Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.20
+   Enhanced Guide                  Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.21
+   Facsimile Telephone Number      Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.22
+   Fax                             N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.23
+   Generalized Time                Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24
+   Guide                           Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.25
+   IA5 String                      Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26
+   INTEGER                         Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27
+   JPEG                            N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28
+   LDAP Syntax Description         Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54
+   LDAP Schema Definition          Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.56
+   LDAP Schema Description         Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.57
+   Master And Shadow Access Points Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.29
+   Matching Rule Description       Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.30
+   Matching Rule Use Description   Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.31
+   Mail Preference                 Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.32
+   MHS OR Address                  Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.33
+   Modify Rights                   Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.55
+   Name And Optional UID           Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34
+   Name Form Description           Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.35
+   Numeric String                  Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36
+   Object Class Description        Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.37
+   Octet String                    Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40
+   OID                             Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38
+   Other Mailbox                   Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.39
+   Postal Address                  Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41
+   Protocol Information            Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.42
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   Presentation Address            Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.43
+   Printable String                Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44
+   Substring Assertion             Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58
+   Subtree Specification           Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.45
+   Supplier Information            Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.46
+   Supplier Or Consumer            Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.47
+   Supplier And Consumer           Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.48
+   Supported Algorithm             N  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.49
+   Telephone Number                Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50
+   Teletex Terminal Identifier     Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.51
+   Telex Number                    Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.52
+   UTC Time                        Y  1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.53
+
+   A suggested minimum upper bound on the number of characters in value
+   with a string-based syntax, or the number of bytes in a value for all
+   other syntaxes, may be indicated by appending this bound count inside
+   of curly braces following the syntax name's OBJECT IDENTIFIER in an
+   Attribute Type Description.  This bound is not part of the syntax
+   name itself.  For instance, "1.3.6.4.1.1466.0{64}" suggests that
+   server implementations should allow a string to be 64 characters
+   long, although they may allow longer strings.  Note that a single
+   character of the Directory String syntax may be encoded in more than
+   one byte since UTF-8 is a variable-length encoding.
+
+4.3.3. Syntax Description
+
+   The following BNF may be used to associate a short description with a
+   syntax OBJECT IDENTIFIER. Implementors should note that future
+   versions of this document may expand this definition to include
+   additional terms.  Terms whose identifier begins with "X-" are
+   reserved for private experiments, and MUST be followed by a
+   <qdstrings>.
+
+      SyntaxDescription = "(" whsp
+          numericoid whsp
+          [ "DESC" qdstring ]
+          whsp ")"
+
+4.4. Object Classes
+
+   The format for representation of object classes is defined in X.501
+   [3]. In general every entry will contain an abstract class ("top" or
+   "alias"), at least one structural object class, and zero or more
+   auxiliary object classes.  Whether an object class is abstract,
+   structural or auxiliary is defined when the object class identifier
+   is assigned.  An object class definition should not be changed
+   without having a new identifier assigned to it.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   Object class descriptions are written according to the following BNF.
+   Implementors should note that future versions of this document may
+   expand this definition to include additional terms.  Terms whose
+   identifier begins with "X-" are reserved for private experiments, and
+   MUST be followed by a <qdstrings> encoding.
+
+      ObjectClassDescription = "(" whsp
+          numericoid whsp      ; ObjectClass identifier
+          [ "NAME" qdescrs ]
+          [ "DESC" qdstring ]
+          [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ]
+          [ "SUP" oids ]       ; Superior ObjectClasses
+          [ ( "ABSTRACT" / "STRUCTURAL" / "AUXILIARY" ) whsp ]
+                               ; default structural
+          [ "MUST" oids ]      ; AttributeTypes
+          [ "MAY" oids ]       ; AttributeTypes
+      whsp ")"
+
+   These are described as sample values for the subschema
+   "objectClasses" attribute for a server which implements the LDAP
+   schema. While lines have been folded for readability, the values
+   transferred in protocol would not contain newlines.
+
+   Servers SHOULD implement all the object classes referenced in section
+   7, except for extensibleObject, which is optional. Servers MAY
+   implement additional object classes not listed in this document, and
+   if they do so, MUST publish the definitions of the classes in the
+   objectClasses attribute of their subschema entries.
+
+   Schema developers MUST NOT create object class definitions whose
+   names conflict with attributes defined for use with LDAP in existing
+   standards-track RFCs.
+
+4.5. Matching Rules
+
+   Matching rules are used by servers to compare attribute values
+   against assertion values when performing Search and Compare
+   operations.  They are also used to identify the value to be added or
+   deleted when modifying entries, and are used when comparing a
+   purported distinguished name with the name of an entry.
+
+   Most of the attributes given in this document will have an equality
+   matching rule defined.
+
+   Matching rule descriptions are written according to the following
+   BNF.  Implementors should note that future versions of this document
+   may have expanded this BNF to include additional terms.  Terms whose
+   identifier begins with "X-" are reserved for private experiments, and
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   MUST be followed by a <qdstrings> encoding.
+
+      MatchingRuleDescription = "(" whsp
+          numericoid whsp  ; MatchingRule identifier
+          [ "NAME" qdescrs ]
+          [ "DESC" qdstring ]
+          [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ]
+          "SYNTAX" numericoid
+      whsp ")"
+
+   Values of the matchingRuleUse list the attributes which are suitable
+   for use with an extensible matching rule.
+
+      MatchingRuleUseDescription = "(" whsp
+          numericoid whsp  ; MatchingRule identifier
+          [ "NAME" qdescrs ]
+          [ "DESC" qdstring ]
+          [ "OBSOLETE" ]
+         "APPLIES" oids    ; AttributeType identifiers
+      whsp ")"
+
+   Servers which support matching rules and the extensibleMatch SHOULD
+   implement all the matching rules in section 8.
+
+   Servers MAY implement additional matching rules not listed in this
+   document, and if they do so, MUST publish the definitions of the
+   matching rules in the matchingRules attribute of their subschema
+   entries. If the server supports the extensibleMatch, then the server
+   MUST publish the relationship between the matching rules and
+   attributes in the matchingRuleUse attribute.
+
+   For example, a server which implements a privately-defined matching
+   rule for performing sound-alike matches on Directory String-valued
+   attributes would include the following in the subschema entry
+   (1.2.3.4.5 is an example, the OID of an actual matching rule would be
+   different):
+
+   matchingRule: ( 1.2.3.4.5 NAME 'soundAlikeMatch'
+    SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )
+
+   If this matching rule could be used with the attributes 2.5.4.41 and
+   2.5.4.15, the following would also be present:
+
+   matchingRuleUse: ( 1.2.3.4.5 APPLIES (2.5.4.41 $ 2.5.4.15) )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   A client could then make use of this matching rule by sending a
+   search operation in which the filter is of the extensibleMatch
+   choice, the matchingRule field is "soundAlikeMatch", and the type
+   field is "2.5.4.41" or "2.5.4.15".
+
+5. Attribute Types
+
+   All LDAP server implementations MUST recognize the attribute types
+   defined in this section.
+
+   Servers SHOULD also recognize all the attributes from section 5 of
+   [12].
+
+5.1. Standard Operational Attributes
+
+   Servers MUST maintain values of these attributes in accordance with
+   the definitions in X.501(93).
+
+5.1.1. createTimestamp
+
+   This attribute SHOULD appear in entries which were created using the
+   Add operation.
+
+    ( 2.5.18.1 NAME 'createTimestamp' EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch
+      ORDERING generalizedTimeOrderingMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24
+      SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.1.2. modifyTimestamp
+
+   This attribute SHOULD appear in entries which have been modified
+   using the Modify operation.
+
+    ( 2.5.18.2 NAME 'modifyTimestamp' EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch
+      ORDERING generalizedTimeOrderingMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24
+      SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.1.3. creatorsName
+
+   This attribute SHOULD appear in entries which were created using the
+   Add operation.
+
+    ( 2.5.18.3 NAME 'creatorsName' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
+      SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+5.1.4. modifiersName
+
+   This attribute SHOULD appear in entries which have been modified
+   using the Modify operation.
+
+    ( 2.5.18.4 NAME 'modifiersName' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12
+      SINGLE-VALUE NO-USER-MODIFICATION USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.1.5. subschemaSubentry
+
+   The value of this attribute is the name of a subschema entry (or
+   subentry if the server is based on X.500(93)) in which the server
+   makes available attributes specifying the schema.
+
+    ( 2.5.18.10 NAME 'subschemaSubentry'
+      EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 NO-USER-MODIFICATION
+      SINGLE-VALUE USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.1.6. attributeTypes
+
+   This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry.
+
+    ( 2.5.21.5 NAME 'attributeTypes'
+      EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.3 USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.1.7. objectClasses
+
+   This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry.
+
+    ( 2.5.21.6 NAME 'objectClasses'
+      EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.37 USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.1.8. matchingRules
+
+   This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry.
+
+    ( 2.5.21.4 NAME 'matchingRules'
+      EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.30 USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+5.1.9. matchingRuleUse
+
+   This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry.
+
+    ( 2.5.21.8 NAME 'matchingRuleUse'
+      EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.31 USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.2. LDAP Operational Attributes
+
+   These attributes are only present in the root DSE (see [1] and [3]).
+
+   Servers MUST recognize these attribute names, but it is not required
+   that a server provide values for these attributes, when the attribute
+   corresponds to a feature which the server does not implement.
+
+5.2.1. namingContexts
+
+   The values of this attribute correspond to naming contexts which this
+   server masters or shadows.  If the server does not master any
+   information (e.g. it is an LDAP gateway to a public X.500 directory)
+   this attribute will be absent.  If the server believes it contains
+   the entire directory, the attribute will have a single value, and
+   that value will be the empty string (indicating the null DN of the
+   root). This attribute will allow a client to choose suitable base
+   objects for searching when it has contacted a server.
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.5 NAME 'namingContexts'
+     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 USAGE dSAOperation )
+
+5.2.2. altServer
+
+   The values of this attribute are URLs of other servers which may be
+   contacted when this server becomes unavailable.  If the server does
+   not know of any other servers which could be used this attribute will
+   be absent. Clients may cache this information in case their preferred
+   LDAP server later becomes unavailable.
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.6 NAME 'altServer'
+     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 USAGE dSAOperation )
+
+5.2.3. supportedExtension
+
+   The values of this attribute are OBJECT IDENTIFIERs identifying the
+   supported extended operations which the server supports.
+
+   If the server does not support any extensions this attribute will be
+   absent.
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.7 NAME 'supportedExtension'
+     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 USAGE dSAOperation )
+
+5.2.4. supportedControl
+
+   The values of this attribute are the OBJECT IDENTIFIERs identifying
+   controls which the server supports.  If the server does not support
+   any controls, this attribute will be absent.
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.13 NAME 'supportedControl'
+     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 USAGE dSAOperation )
+
+5.2.5. supportedSASLMechanisms
+
+   The values of this attribute are the names of supported SASL
+   mechanisms which the server supports.  If the server does not support
+   any mechanisms this attribute will be absent.
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.14 NAME 'supportedSASLMechanisms'
+     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 USAGE dSAOperation )
+
+5.2.6. supportedLDAPVersion
+
+   The values of this attribute are the versions of the LDAP protocol
+   which the server implements.
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.15 NAME 'supportedLDAPVersion'
+     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 USAGE dSAOperation )
+
+5.3. LDAP Subschema Attribute
+
+   This attribute is typically located in the subschema entry.
+
+5.3.1. ldapSyntaxes
+
+   Servers MAY use this attribute to list the syntaxes which are
+   implemented.  Each value corresponds to one syntax.
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.16 NAME 'ldapSyntaxes'
+      EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54 USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.4. X.500 Subschema attributes
+
+   These attributes are located in the subschema entry.  All servers
+   SHOULD recognize their name, although typically only X.500 servers
+   will implement their functionality.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+5.4.1. dITStructureRules
+
+ ( 2.5.21.1 NAME 'dITStructureRules' EQUALITY integerFirstComponentMatch
+   SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.17 USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.4.2. nameForms
+
+    ( 2.5.21.7 NAME 'nameForms'
+      EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.35 USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+5.4.3. ditContentRules
+
+    ( 2.5.21.2 NAME 'dITContentRules'
+      EQUALITY objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.16 USAGE directoryOperation )
+
+6. Syntaxes
+
+   Servers SHOULD recognize all the syntaxes described in this section.
+
+6.1. Attribute Type Description
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.3 DESC 'Attribute Type Description' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the BNF given at the
+   start of section 4.2. For example,
+
+        ( 2.5.4.0 NAME 'objectClass'
+          SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 )
+
+6.2. Binary
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5 DESC 'Binary' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded as described in section 4.3.1.
+
+6.3. Bit String
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 DESC 'Bit String' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+      bitstring = "'" *binary-digit "'B"
+
+      binary-digit = "0" / "1"
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 16]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   Example:
+
+        '0101111101'B
+
+6.4. Boolean
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7 DESC 'Boolean' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+      boolean = "TRUE" / "FALSE"
+
+   Boolean values have an encoding of "TRUE" if they are logically true,
+   and have an encoding of "FALSE" otherwise.
+
+6.5. Certificate
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.8 DESC 'Certificate' )
+
+   Because of the changes from X.509(1988) and X.509(1993) and
+   additional changes to the ASN.1 definition to support certificate
+   extensions, no string representation is defined, and values in this
+   syntax MUST only be transferred using the binary encoding, by
+   requesting or returning the attributes with descriptions
+   "userCertificate;binary" or "caCertificate;binary".  The BNF notation
+   in RFC 1778 for "User Certificate" is not recommended to be used.
+
+6.6. Certificate List
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.9 DESC 'Certificate List' )
+
+   Because of the incompatibility of the X.509(1988) and X.509(1993)
+   definitions of revocation lists, values in this syntax MUST only be
+   transferred using a binary encoding, by requesting or returning the
+   attributes with descriptions "certificateRevocationList;binary" or
+   "authorityRevocationList;binary".  The BNF notation in RFC 1778 for
+   "Authority Revocation List" is not recommended to be used.
+
+6.7. Certificate Pair
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.10 DESC 'Certificate Pair' )
+
+   Because the Certificate is being carried in binary, values in this
+   syntax MUST only be transferred using a binary encoding, by
+   requesting or returning the attribute description
+   "crossCertificatePair;binary". The BNF notation in RFC 1778 for
+   "Certificate Pair" is not recommended to be used.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 17]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+6.8. Country String
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.11 DESC 'Country String' )
+
+   A value in this syntax is encoded the same as a value of Directory
+   String syntax.  Note that this syntax is limited to values of exactly
+   two printable string characters, as listed in ISO 3166 [14].
+
+      CountryString  = p p
+
+   Example:
+      US
+
+6.9. DN
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 DESC 'DN' )
+
+   Values in the Distinguished Name syntax are encoded to have the
+   representation defined in [5].  Note that this representation is not
+   reversible to an ASN.1 encoding used in X.500 for Distinguished
+   Names, as the CHOICE of any DirectoryString element in an RDN is no
+   longer known.
+
+   Examples (from [5]):
+      CN=Steve Kille,O=Isode Limited,C=GB
+      OU=Sales+CN=J. Smith,O=Widget Inc.,C=US
+      CN=L. Eagle,O=Sue\, Grabbit and Runn,C=GB
+      CN=Before\0DAfter,O=Test,C=GB
+      1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=#04024869,O=Test,C=GB
+      SN=Lu\C4\8Di\C4\87
+
+6.10. Directory String
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 DESC 'Directory String' )
+
+   A string in this syntax is encoded in the UTF-8 form of ISO 10646 (a
+   superset of Unicode).  Servers and clients MUST be prepared to
+   receive encodings of arbitrary Unicode characters, including
+   characters not presently assigned to any character set.
+
+   For characters in the PrintableString form, the value is encoded as
+   the string value itself.
+
+   If it is of the TeletexString form, then the characters are
+   transliterated to their equivalents in UniversalString, and encoded
+   in UTF-8 [9].
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 18]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   If it is of the UniversalString or BMPString forms [10], UTF-8 is
+   used to encode them.
+
+   Note: the form of DirectoryString is not indicated in protocol unless
+   the attribute value is carried in binary.  Servers which convert to
+   DAP MUST choose an appropriate form.  Servers MUST NOT reject values
+   merely because they contain legal Unicode characters outside of the
+   range of printable ASCII.
+
+   Example:
+
+      This is a string of DirectoryString containing #!%#@
+
+6.11. DIT Content Rule Description
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.16 DESC 'DIT Content Rule Description' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF.
+   Implementors should note that future versions of this document may
+   have expanded this BNF to include additional terms.
+
+
+      DITContentRuleDescription = "("
+          numericoid   ; Structural ObjectClass identifier
+          [ "NAME" qdescrs ]
+          [ "DESC" qdstring ]
+          [ "OBSOLETE" ]
+          [ "AUX" oids ]    ; Auxiliary ObjectClasses
+          [ "MUST" oids ]   ; AttributeType identifiers
+          [ "MAY" oids ]    ; AttributeType identifiers
+          [ "NOT" oids ]    ; AttributeType identifiers
+         ")"
+
+6.12. Facsimile Telephone Number
+
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.22 DESC 'Facsimile Telephone Number' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+      fax-number    = printablestring [ "$" faxparameters ]
+
+      faxparameters = faxparm / ( faxparm "$" faxparameters )
+
+      faxparm = "twoDimensional" / "fineResolution" /
+                "unlimitedLength" /
+                "b4Length" / "a3Width" / "b4Width" / "uncompressed"
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 19]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   In the above, the first printablestring is the telephone number,
+   based on E.123 [15], and the faxparm tokens represent fax parameters.
+
+6.13. Fax
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.23 DESC 'Fax' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded as if they were octet strings
+   containing Group 3 Fax images as defined in [7].
+
+6.14. Generalized Time
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 DESC 'Generalized Time' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded as printable strings, represented
+   as specified in X.208.  Note that the time zone must be specified.
+   It is strongly recommended that GMT time be used.  For example,
+
+                199412161032Z
+
+6.15. IA5 String
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 DESC 'IA5 String' )
+
+   The encoding of a value in this syntax is the string value itself.
+
+6.16. INTEGER
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 DESC 'INTEGER' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded as the decimal representation of
+   their values, with each decimal digit represented by the its
+   character equivalent. So the number 1321 is represented by the
+   character string "1321".
+
+6.17. JPEG
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.28 DESC 'JPEG' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded as strings containing JPEG images
+   in the JPEG File Interchange Format (JFIF), as described in [8].
+
+6.18. Matching Rule Description
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.30 DESC 'Matching Rule Description' )
+
+   Values of type matchingRules are encoded as strings according to the
+   BNF given in section 4.5.
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 20]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+6.19. Matching Rule Use Description
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.31 DESC 'Matching Rule Use Description'
+   )
+
+   Values of type matchingRuleUse are encoded as strings according to
+   the BNF given in section 4.5.
+
+6.20. MHS OR Address
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.33 DESC 'MHS OR Address' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded as strings, according to the format
+   defined in [11].
+
+6.21. Name And Optional UID
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34 DESC 'Name And Optional UID' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+      NameAndOptionalUID = DistinguishedName [ "#" bitstring ]
+
+   Although the '#' character may occur in a string representation of a
+   distinguished name, no additional special quoting is done.  This
+   syntax has been added subsequent to RFC 1778.
+
+   Example:
+
+      1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.0=#04024869,O=Test,C=GB#'0101'B
+
+6.22. Name Form Description
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.35 DESC 'Name Form Description' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF.
+   Implementors should note that future versions of this document may
+   have expanded this BNF to include additional terms.
+
+      NameFormDescription = "(" whsp
+          numericoid whsp  ; NameForm identifier
+          [ "NAME" qdescrs ]
+          [ "DESC" qdstring ]
+          [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ]
+          "OC" woid         ; Structural ObjectClass
+          "MUST" oids       ; AttributeTypes
+          [ "MAY" oids ]    ; AttributeTypes
+      whsp ")"
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 21]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+6.23. Numeric String
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36 DESC 'Numeric String' )
+
+   The encoding of a string in this syntax is the string value itself.
+   Example:
+
+      1997
+
+6.24. Object Class Description
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.37 DESC 'Object Class Description' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the BNF in section
+   4.4.
+
+6.25. OID
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 DESC 'OID' )
+
+   Values in the Object Identifier syntax are encoded according to
+   the BNF in section 4.1 for "oid".
+
+   Example:
+
+      1.2.3.4
+      cn
+
+6.26. Other Mailbox
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.39 DESC 'Other Mailbox' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+      otherMailbox = mailbox-type "$" mailbox
+
+      mailbox-type = printablestring
+
+      mailbox = <an encoded IA5 String>
+
+   In the above, mailbox-type represents the type of mail system in
+   which the mailbox resides, for example "MCIMail"; and mailbox is the
+   actual mailbox in the mail system defined by mailbox-type.
+
+6.27. Postal Address
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 DESC 'Postal Address' )
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 22]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+      postal-address = dstring *( "$" dstring )
+
+   In the above, each dstring component of a postal address value is
+   encoded as a value of type Directory String syntax.  Backslashes and
+   dollar characters, if they occur in the component, are quoted as
+   described in section 4.3.   Many servers limit the postal address to
+   six lines of up to thirty characters.
+
+   Example:
+
+      1234 Main St.$Anytown, CA 12345$USA
+      \241,000,000 Sweepstakes$PO Box 1000000$Anytown, CA 12345$USA
+
+6.28. Presentation Address
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.43 DESC 'Presentation Address' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded with the representation described
+   in RFC 1278 [6].
+
+6.29. Printable String
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 DESC 'Printable String' )
+
+   The encoding of a value in this syntax is the string value itself.
+   PrintableString is limited to the characters in production p of
+   section 4.1.
+
+   Example:
+
+      This is a PrintableString
+
+6.30. Telephone Number
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50 DESC 'Telephone Number' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded as if they were Printable String
+   types.  Telephone numbers are recommended in X.520 to be in
+   international form, as described in E.123 [15].
+
+   Example:
+
+      +1 512 305 0280
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 23]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+6.31. UTC Time
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.53 DESC 'UTC Time' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded as if they were printable strings
+   with the strings containing a UTCTime value.  This is historical; new
+   attribute definitions SHOULD use GeneralizedTime instead.
+
+6.32. LDAP Syntax Description
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.54 DESC 'LDAP Syntax Description' )
+
+   Values in this syntax are encoded according to the BNF in section
+   4.3.3.
+
+6.33. DIT Structure Rule Description
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.17 DESC 'DIT Structure Rule Description'
+   )
+
+   Values with this syntax are encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+      DITStructureRuleDescription = "(" whsp
+          ruleidentifier whsp            ; DITStructureRule identifier
+          [ "NAME" qdescrs ]
+          [ "DESC" qdstring ]
+          [ "OBSOLETE" whsp ]
+          "FORM" woid whsp               ; NameForm
+          [ "SUP" ruleidentifiers whsp ] ; superior DITStructureRules
+      ")"
+
+      ruleidentifier = integer
+
+      ruleidentifiers = ruleidentifier |
+          "(" whsp ruleidentifierlist whsp ")"
+
+      ruleidentifierlist = [ ruleidentifier *( ruleidentifier ) ]
+
+7. Object Classes
+
+   Servers SHOULD recognize all the names of standard classes from
+   section 7 of [12].
+
+7.1. Extensible Object Class
+
+   The extensibleObject object class, if present in an entry, permits
+   that entry to optionally hold any attribute.  The MAY attribute list
+   of this class is implicitly the set of all attributes.
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 24]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.101.120.111 NAME 'extensibleObject'
+      SUP top AUXILIARY )
+
+   The mandatory attributes of the other object classes of this entry
+   are still required to be present.
+
+   Note that not all servers will implement this object class, and those
+   which do not will reject requests to add entries which contain this
+   object class, or modify an entry to add this object class.
+
+7.2. subschema
+
+   This object class is used in the subschema entry.
+
+    ( 2.5.20.1 NAME 'subschema' AUXILIARY
+      MAY ( dITStructureRules $ nameForms $ ditContentRules $
+      objectClasses $ attributeTypes $ matchingRules $
+      matchingRuleUse ) )
+
+   The ldapSyntaxes operational attribute may also be present in
+   subschema entries.
+
+8. Matching Rules
+
+   Servers which implement the extensibleMatch filter SHOULD allow all
+   the matching rules listed in this section to be used in the
+   extensibleMatch.  In general these servers SHOULD allow matching
+   rules to be used with all attribute types known to the server, when
+   the assertion syntax of the matching rule is the same as the value
+   syntax of the attribute.
+
+   Servers MAY implement additional matching rules.
+
+8.1. Matching Rules used in Equality Filters
+
+   Servers SHOULD be capable of performing the following matching rules.
+
+   For all these rules, the assertion syntax is the same as the value
+   syntax.
+
+    ( 2.5.13.0 NAME 'objectIdentifierMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 )
+
+   If the client supplies a filter using an objectIdentifierMatch whose
+   matchValue oid is in the "descr" form, and the oid is not recognized
+   by the server, then the filter is Undefined.
+
+    ( 2.5.13.1 NAME 'distinguishedNameMatch'
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 25]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.2 NAME 'caseIgnoreMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.8 NAME 'numericStringMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.36 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.11 NAME 'caseIgnoreListMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.41 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.14 NAME 'integerMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.16 NAME 'bitStringMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.20 NAME 'telephoneNumberMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.50 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.22 NAME 'presentationAddressMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.43 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.23 NAME 'uniqueMemberMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.34 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.24 NAME 'protocolInformationMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.42 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.27 NAME 'generalizedTimeMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 )
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.1 NAME 'caseExactIA5Match'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 )
+
+    ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.109.114.2 NAME 'caseIgnoreIA5Match'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 )
+
+   When performing the caseIgnoreMatch, caseIgnoreListMatch,
+   telephoneNumberMatch, caseExactIA5Match and caseIgnoreIA5Match,
+   multiple adjoining whitespace characters are treated the same as an
+   individual space, and leading and trailing whitespace is ignored.
+
+   Clients MUST NOT assume that servers are capable of transliteration
+   of Unicode values.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 26]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+8.2. Matching Rules used in Inequality Filters
+
+   Servers SHOULD be capable of performing the following matching rules,
+   which are used in greaterOrEqual and lessOrEqual filters.
+
+    ( 2.5.13.28 NAME 'generalizedTimeOrderingMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 )
+
+    ( 2.5.13.3 NAME 'caseIgnoreOrderingMatch'
+      SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )
+
+   The sort ordering for a caseIgnoreOrderingMatch is implementation-
+   dependent.
+
+8.3. Syntax and Matching Rules used in Substring Filters
+
+   The Substring Assertion syntax is used only as the syntax of
+   assertion values in the extensible match.  It is not used as the
+   syntax of attributes, or in the substring filter.
+
+   ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 DESC 'Substring Assertion' )
+
+   The Substring Assertion is encoded according to the following BNF:
+
+      substring = [initial] any [final]
+      initial = value
+      any = "*" *(value "*")
+      final = value
+
+   The <value> production is UTF-8 encoded string.  Should the backslash
+   or asterix characters be present in a production of <value>, they are
+   quoted as described in section 4.3.
+
+   Servers SHOULD be capable of performing the following matching rules,
+   which are used in substring filters.
+
+   ( 2.5.13.4 NAME 'caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch'
+    SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )
+
+   ( 2.5.13.21 NAME 'telephoneNumberSubstringsMatch'
+    SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )
+
+   ( 2.5.13.10 NAME 'numericStringSubstringsMatch'
+    SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.58 )
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 27]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+8.4. Matching Rules for Subschema Attributes
+
+   Servers which allow subschema entries to be modified by clients MUST
+   support the following matching rules, as they are the equality
+   matching rules for several of the subschema attributes.
+
+   ( 2.5.13.29 NAME 'integerFirstComponentMatch'
+     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 )
+
+   ( 2.5.13.30 NAME 'objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch'
+     SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 )
+
+   Implementors should note that the assertion syntax of these matching
+   rules, an INTEGER or OID, is different from the value syntax of
+   attributes for which this is the equality matching rule.
+
+   If the client supplies an extensible filter using an
+   objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch whose matchValue is in the
+   "descr" form, and the OID is not recognized by the server, then the
+   filter is Undefined.
+
+9. Security Considerations
+
+9.1. Disclosure
+
+   Attributes of directory entries are used to provide descriptive
+   information about the real-world objects they represent, which can be
+   people, organizations or devices.  Most countries have privacy laws
+   regarding the publication of information about people.
+
+9.2. Use of Attribute Values in Security Applications
+
+   The transformations of an AttributeValue value from its X.501 form to
+   an LDAP string representation are not always reversible back to the
+   same BER or DER form.  An example of a situation which requires the
+   DER form of a distinguished name is the verification of an X.509
+   certificate.
+
+   For example, a distinguished name consisting of one RDN with one AVA,
+   in which the type is commonName and the value is of the TeletexString
+   choice with the letters 'Sam' would be represented in LDAP as the
+   string CN=Sam.  Another distinguished name in which the value is
+   still 'Sam' but of the PrintableString choice would have the same
+   representation CN=Sam.
+
+   Applications which require the reconstruction of the DER form of the
+   value SHOULD NOT use the string representation of attribute syntaxes
+   when converting a value to LDAP format.  Instead it SHOULD use the
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 28]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+   Binary syntax.
+
+10. Acknowledgements
+
+   This document is based substantially on RFC 1778, written by Tim
+   Howes, Steve Kille, Wengyik Yeong and Colin Robbins.
+
+   Many of the attribute syntax encodings defined in this and related
+   documents are adapted from those used in the QUIPU and the IC R3
+   X.500 implementations. The contributions of the authors of both these
+   implementations in the specification of syntaxes are gratefully
+   acknowledged.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 29]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+11. Authors' Addresses
+
+   Mark Wahl
+   Critical Angle Inc.
+   4815 West Braker Lane #502-385
+   Austin, TX 78759
+   USA
+
+   Phone:  +1 512 372-3160
+   EMail:  M.Wahl@critical-angle.com
+
+   Andy Coulbeck
+   Isode Inc.
+   9390 Research Blvd Suite 305
+   Austin, TX 78759
+   USA
+
+   Phone:  +1 512 231-8993
+   EMail:  A.Coulbeck@isode.com
+
+   Tim Howes
+   Netscape Communications Corp.
+   501 E. Middlefield Rd, MS MV068
+   Mountain View, CA 94043
+   USA
+
+   Phone:  +1 650 937-3419
+   EMail:   howes@netscape.com
+
+   Steve Kille
+   Isode Limited
+   The Dome, The Square
+   Richmond
+   TW9 1DT
+   UK
+
+   Phone:  +44-181-332-9091
+   EMail:  S.Kille@isode.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 30]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+12. Bibliography
+
+   [1] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
+       Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
+
+   [2] The Directory: Selected Attribute Types.  ITU-T Recommendation
+       X.520, 1993.
+
+   [3] The Directory: Models. ITU-T Recommendation X.501, 1993.
+
+   [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
+       Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [5] Wahl, M., Kille, S., and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access
+       Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of
+       Distinguished Names", RFC 2253, December 1997.
+
+   [6] Kille, S., "A String Representation for Presentation Addresses",
+       RFC 1278, November 1991.
+
+   [7] Terminal Equipment and Protocols for Telematic Services -
+       Standardization of Group 3 facsimile apparatus for document
+       transmission.  CCITT, Recommendation T.4.
+
+   [8] JPEG File Interchange Format (Version 1.02).  Eric Hamilton,
+       C-Cube Microsystems, Milpitas, CA, September 1, 1992.
+
+   [9] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO
+       10646", RFC 2044, October 1996.
+
+   [10] Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -
+        Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane, ISO/IEC 10646-1 :
+        1993 (With amendments).
+
+   [11] Hardcastle-Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021
+        and RFC 822", RFC 1327, May 1992.
+
+   [12] Wahl, M., "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use
+        with LDAPv3", RFC 2256, December 1997.
+
+   [13] Crocker, D., "Standard of the Format of ARPA-Internet Text
+        Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
+
+   [14] ISO 3166, "Codes for the representation of names of countries".
+
+   [15] ITU-T Rec. E.123, Notation for national and international
+        telephone numbers, 1988.
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 31]
+
+RFC 2252                   LADPv3 Attributes               December 1997
+
+
+13.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Wahl, et. al.               Standards Track                    [Page 32]
+



Mime
View raw message