directory-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From fel...@apache.org
Subject svn commit: r592038 [13/22] - in /directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help: ./ META-INF/ src/ src/main/ src/main/docbook/ src/main/resources/ src/main/resources/about_files/ src/main/resources/html/ src/main/resources/html/css/ src/main/resourc...
Date Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:17:15 GMT
Added: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc3866.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc3866.txt?rev=592038&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc3866.txt
(added)
+++ directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc3866.txt
Mon Nov  5 07:16:53 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,843 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                   K. Zeilenga, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 3866                           OpenLDAP Foundation
+Obsoletes: 2596                                                July 2004
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+                    Language Tags and Ranges in the
+              Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
+
+Abstract
+
+   It is often desirable to be able to indicate the natural language
+   associated with values held in a directory and to be able to query
+   the directory for values which fulfill the user's language needs.
+   This document details the use of Language Tags and Ranges in the
+   Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).
+
+1.  Background and Intended Use
+
+   The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [RFC3377] provides a
+   means for clients to interrogate and modify information stored in a
+   distributed directory system.  The information in the directory is
+   maintained as attributes of entries.  Most of these attributes have
+   syntaxes which are human-readable strings, and it is desirable to be
+   able to indicate the natural language associated with attribute
+   values.
+
+   This document describes how language tags and ranges [RFC3066] are
+   carried in LDAP and are to be interpreted by LDAP implementations.
+   All LDAP implementations MUST be prepared to accept language tags and
+   ranges.
+
+   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].
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   This document replaces RFC 2596.  Appendix A summaries changes made
+   since RFC 2596.
+
+   Appendix B discusses differences from X.500(1997) "contexts"
+   mechanism.
+
+   Appendix A and B are provided for informational purposes only.
+
+   The remainder of this section provides a summary of Language Tags,
+   Language Ranges, and Attribute Descriptions.
+
+1.1.  Language Tags
+
+   Section 2 of BCP 47 [RFC3066] describes the language tag format which
+   is used in LDAP.  Briefly, it is a string of [ASCII] letters and
+   hyphens.  Examples include "fr", "en-US" and "ja-JP".  Language tags
+   are case insensitive.  That is, the language tag "en-us" is the same
+   as "EN-US".
+
+   Section 2 of this document details use of language tags in LDAP.
+
+1.2.  Language Ranges
+
+   Section 2.5 of BCP 47 [RFC3066] describes the language ranges.
+   Language ranges are used to specify sets of language tags.
+
+   A language range matches a language tag if it is exactly equal to the
+   tag, or if it is exactly equal to a prefix of the tag such that the
+   first character following the prefix is "-".  That is, the language
+   range "de" matches the language tags "de" and "de-CH" but not "den".
+   The special language range "*" matches all language tags.
+
+   Due to attribute description option naming restrictions in LDAP, this
+   document defines a different language range syntax.  However, the
+   semantics of language ranges in LDAP are consistent with BCP 47.
+
+   Section 3 of this document details use of language ranges in LDAP.
+
+1.3.  Attribute Descriptions
+
+   This section provides an overview of attribute descriptions in LDAP.
+   LDAP attributes and attribute descriptions are defined in [RFC2251].
+
+   An attribute consists of a type, a set of zero or more associated
+   tagging options, and a set of one or more values.  The type and the
+   options are combined into the AttributeDescription.
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   AttributeDescriptions can also contain options which are not part of
+   the attribute, but indicate some other function (such as range
+   assertion or transfer encoding).
+
+   An AttributeDescription with one or more tagging options is a direct
+   subtype of each AttributeDescription of the same type with all but
+   one of the tagging options.  If the AttributeDescription's type is a
+   direct subtype of some other type, then the AttributeDescription is
+   also a direct subtype of the AttributeDescription which consists of
+   the supertype and all of the tagging options.  That is,
+   "CN;x-bar;x-foo" is a direct subtype of "CN;x-bar", "CN;x-foo", and
+   "name;x-bar;x-foo".  Note that "CN" is a subtype of "name".
+
+2.  Use of Language Tags in LDAP
+
+   This section describes how LDAP implementations MUST interpret
+   language tags in performing operations.
+
+   Servers which support storing attributes with language tag options in
+   the Directory Information Tree (DIT) SHOULD allow any attribute type
+   it recognizes that has the Directory String, IA5 String, or other
+   textual string syntaxes to have language tag options associated with
+   it.  Servers MAY allow language options to be associated with other
+   attributes types.
+
+   Clients SHOULD NOT assume servers are capable of storing attributes
+   with language tags in the directory.
+
+   Implementations MUST NOT otherwise interpret the structure of the tag
+   when comparing two tags, and MUST treat them simply as strings of
+   characters.  Implementations MUST allow any arbitrary string which
+   conforms to the syntax defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066] to be used as a
+   language tag.
+
+2.1.  Language Tag Options
+
+   A language tag option associates a natural language with values of an
+   attribute.  An attribute description may contain multiple language
+   tag options.  An entry may contain multiple attributes with same
+   attribute type but different combinations of language tag (and other)
+   options.
+
+   A language tag option conforms to the following ABNF [RFC2234]:
+
+      language-tag-option = "lang-" Language-Tag
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   where the Language-Tag production is as defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066].
+   This production and those it imports from [RFC2234] are provided here
+   for convenience:
+
+      Language-Tag = Primary-subtag *( "-" Subtag )
+
+      Primary-subtag = 1*8ALPHA
+
+      Subtag = 1*8(ALPHA / DIGIT)
+
+      ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z
+
+      DIGIT = %x30-39             ; 0-9
+
+   A language tag option is a tagging option.  A language tag option has
+   no effect on the syntax of the attribute's values nor their transfer
+   encoding.
+
+   Examples of valid AttributeDescription:
+
+      givenName;lang-en-US
+      CN;lang-ja
+      SN;lang-de;lang-gem-PFL
+      O;lang-i-klingon;x-foobar
+      description;x-foobar
+      CN
+
+   Notes: The last two have no language tag options.  The x-foobar
+          option is fictious and used for example purposes.
+
+2.2.  Search Filter
+
+   If language tag options are present in an AttributeDescription in an
+   assertion, then for each entry within scope, the values of each
+   attribute whose AttributeDescription consists of the same attribute
+   type or its subtypes and contains each of the presented (and possibly
+   other) options is to be matched.
+
+   Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type
+   "name;lang-en-US" and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the
+   following directory entry:
+
+   dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
+   objectClass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+   objectClass: extensibleObject       DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+   name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
+   name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
+   CN;lang-en-US: Billy Ray            MATCHES
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
+   CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      DOES NOT MATCH (differing lang-)
+   CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
+   name: Billy Ray                     DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
+   SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
+   SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-,
+                                           wrong value)
+
+   Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".
+
+   It is noted that providing a language tag option in a search filter
+   AttributeDescription will filter out desirable values where the tag
+   does not match exactly.  For example, the filter (name;lang-en=Billy
+   Ray) does NOT match the attribute "name;lang-en-US:  Billy Ray".
+
+   If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
+   options in the DIT, then any assertion which includes a language tag
+   option will not match as such it is an unrecognized attribute type.
+   No error would be returned because of this; a presence assertion
+   would evaluate to FALSE and all other assertions to Undefined.
+
+   If no options are specified in the assertion, then only the base
+   attribute type and the assertion value need match the value in the
+   directory.
+
+   Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type "name" and
+   assertion value "Billy Ray", against the following directory entry:
+
+      dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
+      objectClass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+      objectClass: extensibleObject       DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+      name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
+      name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
+      CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
+      CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      MATCHES
+      CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              MATCHES
+      name: Billy Ray                     MATCHES
+      SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
+      SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
+
+2.3.  Requested Attributes in Search
+
+   Clients can provide language tag options in each AttributeDescription
+   in the requested attribute list in a search request.
+
+   If language tag options are provided in an attribute description,
+   then only attributes in a directory entry whose attribute
+   descriptions have the same attribute type or its subtype and contains
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   each of the presented (and possibly other) language tag options are
+   to be returned.  Thus if a client requests just the attribute
+   "name;lang-en", the server would return "name;lang-en" and
+   "CN;lang-en;lang-ja" but not "SN" nor "name;lang-fr".
+
+   Clients can provide in the attribute list multiple
+   AttributeDescriptions which have the same base attribute type but
+   different options.  For example, a client could provide both
+   "name;lang-en" and "name;lang-fr", and this would permit an attribute
+   with either language tag option to be returned.  Note there would be
+   no need to provide both "name" and "name;lang-en" since all subtypes
+   of name would match "name".
+
+   If a server does not support storing attributes with language tag
+   options in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
+   include language tag options are to be ignored, just as if they were
+   unknown attribute types.
+
+   If a request is made specifying all attributes or an attribute is
+   requested without providing a language tag option, then all attribute
+   values regardless of their language tag option are returned.
+
+   For example, if the client requests a "description" attribute, and a
+   matching entry contains the following attributes:
+
+      objectClass: top
+      objectClass: organization
+      O: Software GmbH
+      description: software products
+      description;lang-en: software products
+      description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte
+
+   The server would return:
+
+      description: software products
+      description;lang-en: software products
+      description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte
+
+2.4.  Compare
+
+   Language tag options can be present in an AttributeDescription used
+   in a compare request AttributeValueAssertion.  This is to be treated
+   by servers the same as the use of language tag options in a search
+   filter with an equality match, as described in Section 2.2.  If there
+   is no attribute in the entry with the same attribute type or its
+   subtype and contains each of the presented (or possibly other)
+   language tag options, the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   Thus, for example, a compare request of type "name" and assertion
+   value "Johann", against an entry containing the following attributes:
+
+      objectClass: top
+      objectClass: person
+      givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
+      CN: Johann Sibelius
+      SN: Sibelius
+
+   would cause the server to return compareTrue.
+
+   However, if the client issued a compare request of type
+   "name;lang-de" and assertion value "Johann" against the above entry,
+   the request would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.
+
+   If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
+   options in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language tag
+   option will always fail to locate an attribute, and
+   noSuchAttributeType will be returned.
+
+2.5.  Add Operation
+
+   Clients can provide language options in AttributeDescription in
+   attributes of a new entry to be created.
+
+   A client can provide multiple attributes with the same attribute type
+   and value, so long as each attribute has a different set of language
+   tag options.
+
+   For example, the following is a valid request:
+
+      dn: CN=John Smith,DC=example,DC=com
+      objectClass: residentialPerson
+      CN: John Smith
+      CN;lang-en: John Smith
+      SN: Smith
+      SN;lang-en: Smith
+      streetAddress: 1 University Street
+      streetAddress;lang-en-US: 1 University Street
+      streetAddress;lang-fr: 1 rue Universite
+      houseIdentifier;lang-fr: 9e etage
+
+   If a server does not support storing language tag options with
+   attribute values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an
+   AttributeDescription with a language tag option as an unrecognized
+   attribute.  If the server forbids the addition of unrecognized
+   attributes then it MUST fail the add request with an appropriate
+   result code.
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+2.6.  Modify Operation
+
+   A client can provide language tag options in an AttributeDescription
+   as part of a modification element in the modify operation.
+
+   Attribute types and language tag options MUST match exactly against
+   values stored in the directory.  For example, if the modification is
+   a "delete", then if the stored values to be deleted have language tag
+   options, then those language tag options MUST be provided in the
+   modify operation, and if the stored values to be deleted do not have
+   any language tag option, then no language tag option is to be
+   provided.
+
+   If the server does not support storing language tag options with
+   attribute values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an
+   AttributeDescription with a language tag option as an unrecognized
+   attribute, and MUST fail the request with an appropriate result code.
+
+3.  Use of Language Ranges in LDAP
+
+   Since the publication of RFC 2596, it has become apparent that there
+   is a need to provide a mechanism for a client to request attributes
+   based upon set of language tag options whose tags all begin with the
+   same sequence of language sub-tags.
+
+   AttributeDescriptions containing language range options are intended
+   to be used in attribute value assertions, search attribute lists, and
+   other places where the client desires to provide an attribute
+   description matching of a range of language tags associated with
+   attributes.
+
+   A language range option conforms to the following ABNF [RFC2234]:
+
+      language-range-option = "lang-" [ Language-Tag "-" ]
+
+   where the Language-Tag production is as defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066].
+   This production and those it imports from [RFC2234] are provided in
+   Section 2.1 for convenience.
+
+   A language range option matches a language tag option if the language
+   range option less the trailing "-" matches exactly the language tag
+   or if the language range option (including the trailing "-") matches
+   a prefix of the language tag option.  Note that the language range
+   option "lang-" matches all language tag options.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   Examples of valid AttributeDescription containing language range
+   options:
+
+      givenName;lang-en-
+      CN;lang-
+      SN;lang-de-;lang-gem-
+      O;lang-x-;x-foobar
+
+   A language range option is not a tagging option.  Attributes cannot
+   be stored with language range options.  Any attempt to add or update
+   an attribute description with a language range option SHALL be
+   treated as an undefined attribute type and result in an error.
+
+   A language range option has no effect on the transfer encoding nor on
+   the syntax of the attribute values.
+
+   Servers SHOULD support assertion of language ranges for any attribute
+   type which they allow to be stored with language tags.
+
+3.1.  Search Filter
+
+   If a language range option is present in an AttributeDescription in
+   an assertion, then for each entry within scope, the values of each
+   attribute whose AttributeDescription consists of the same attribute
+   type or its subtypes and contains a language tag option matching the
+   language range option are to be returned.
+
+   Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type
+   "name;lang-en-" and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the
+   following directory entry:
+
+      dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
+      objectClass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+      objectClass: extensibleObject       DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
+      name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
+      name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
+      CN;lang-en-US: Billy Ray            MATCHES
+      CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
+      CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      MATCHES
+      CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
+      name: Billy Ray                     DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
+      SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
+      SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-,
+                                            wrong value)
+
+   Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
+   options in the DIT, then any assertion which includes a language
+   range option will not match as it is an unrecognized attribute type.
+   No error would be returned because of this; a presence filter would
+   evaluate to FALSE and all other assertions to Undefined.
+
+3.2.  Requested Attributes in Search
+
+   Clients can provide language range options in each
+   AttributeDescription in the requested attribute list in a search
+   request.
+
+   If a language range option is provided in an attribute description,
+   then only attributes in a directory entry whose attribute
+   descriptions have the same attribute type or its subtype and a
+   language tag option matching the provided language range option are
+   to be returned.  Thus if a client requests just the attribute
+   "name;lang-en-", the server would return "name;lang-en-US" and
+   "CN;lang-en;lang-ja" but not "SN" nor "name;lang-fr".
+
+   Clients can provide in the attribute list multiple
+   AttributeDescriptions which have the same base attribute type but
+   different options.  For example a client could provide both
+   "name;lang-en-" and "name;lang-fr-", and this would permit an
+   attribute whose type was name or subtype of name and with a language
+   tag option matching either language range option to be returned.
+
+   If a server does not support storing attributes with language tag
+   options in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
+   include language range options are to be ignored, just as if they
+   were unknown attribute types.
+
+3.3.  Compare
+
+   Language range options can be present in an AttributeDescription used
+   in a compare request AttributeValueAssertion.  This is to be treated
+   by servers the same as the use of language range options in a search
+   filter with an equality match, as described in Section 3.1.  If there
+   is no attribute in the entry with the same subtype and a matching
+   language tag option, the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.
+
+   Thus, for example, a compare request of type "name;lang-" and
+   assertion value "Johann", against the entry with the following
+   attributes:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+      objectClass: top
+      objectClass: person
+      givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
+      CN: Johann Sibelius
+      SN: Sibelius
+
+   will cause the server to return compareTrue.  (Note that the language
+   range option "lang-" matches any language tag option.)
+
+   However, if the client issued a compare request of type
+   "name;lang-de" and assertion value "Sibelius" against the above
+   entry, the request would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.
+
+   If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
+   options in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language
+   range option will always fail to locate an attribute, and
+   noSuchAttributeType will be returned.
+
+4.  Discovering Language Option Support
+
+   A server SHOULD indicate that it supports storing attributes with
+   language tag options in the DIT by publishing 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.4
+   as a value of the root DSE.
+
+   A server SHOULD indicate that it supports language range matching of
+   attributes with language tag options stored in the DIT by publishing
+   1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.5 as a value of the "supportedFeatures"
+   [RFC3674] attribute in the root DSE.
+
+   A server MAY restrict use of language tag options to a subset of the
+   attribute types it recognizes.  This document does not define a
+   mechanism for determining which subset of attribute types can be used
+   with language tag options.
+
+5.  Interoperability with Non-supporting Implementations
+
+   Implementators of this specification should take care that their use
+   of language tag options does not impede proper function of
+   implementations which do not support language tags.
+
+   Per RFC 2251, "an AttributeDescription with one or more options is
+   treated as a subtype of the attribute type without any options."  A
+   non-supporting server will treat an AttributeDescription with any
+   language tag options as an unrecognized attribute type.  A non-
+   supporting client will either do the same, or will treat the
+   AttributeDescription as it would any other unknown subtype.
+   Typically, non-supporting clients simply ignore unrecognized subtypes
+   (and unrecognized attribute types) of attributes they request.
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+   To ensure proper function of non-supporting clients, supporting
+   clients SHOULD ensure that entries they populate with tagged values
+   are also populated with non-tagged values.
+
+   Additionally, supporting clients SHOULD be prepared to handle entries
+   which are not populated with tagged values.
+
+6.  Security Considerations
+
+   Language tags and range options are used solely to indicate the
+   native language of values and in querying the directory for values
+   which fulfill the user's language needed.  These options are not
+   known to raise specific security considerations.  However, the reader
+   should consider general directory security issues detailed in the
+   LDAP technical specification [RFC3377].
+
+7.  IANA Considerations
+
+   Registration of these protocol mechanisms [RFC3383] has been
+   completed by the IANA.
+
+   Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
+   Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.4
+   Description: Language Tag Options
+   Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.5
+   Description: Language Range Options
+   Person & email address to contact for further information:
+        Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@openldap.org>
+   Usage: Feature
+   Specification: RFC 3866
+   Author/Change Controller: IESG
+   Comments: none
+
+   These OIDs were assigned [ASSIGN] by OpenLDAP Foundation, under its
+   IANA-assigned private enterprise allocation [PRIVATE], for use in
+   this specification.
+
+8.  Acknowledgments
+
+   This document is a revision of RFC 2596 by Mark Wahl and Tim Howes.
+   RFC 2596 was a product of the IETF ASID and LDAPEXT working groups.
+   This document also borrows from a number of IETF documents including
+   BCP 47 by H. Alvestrand.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+9.  References
+
+9.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2234]     Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
+                 Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
+
+   [RFC2251]     Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight
+                 Directory Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December
+                 1997.
+
+   [RFC3066]     Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
+                 Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
+
+   [RFC3377]     Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
+                 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
+                 September 2002.
+
+   [RFC3674]     Zeilenga, K., "Feature Discovery in Lightweight
+                 Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)", RFC 3674, December
+                 2003.
+
+   [ASCII]       Coded Character Set--7-bit American Standard Code for
+                 Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
+
+9.2.  Informative References
+
+   [X.501]       International Telecommunication Union -
+                 Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The
+                 Directory -- Models," X.501(1997).
+
+   [RFC3383]     Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
+                 (IANA) Considerations for Lightweight Directory Access
+                 Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002.
+
+   [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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+Appendix A. Differences from RFC 2596
+
+   This document adds support for language ranges, provides a mechanism
+   that a client can use to discover whether a server supports language
+   tags and ranges, and clarifies how attributes with multiple language
+   tags are to be treated.  This document is a significant rewrite of
+   RFC 2596.
+
+Appendix B. Differences from X.500(1997)
+
+   X.500(1997) [X.501] defines a different mechanism, contexts, as the
+   means of representing language tags (codes).  This section summarizes
+   the major differences in approach.
+
+   a) An X.500 operation which has specified a language code on a value
+      matches a value in the directory without a language code.
+
+   b) LDAP references BCP 47 [RFC3066], which allows for IANA
+      registration of new tags as well as unregistered tags.
+
+   c) LDAP supports language ranges (new in this revision).
+
+   d) LDAP does not allow language tags (and ranges) in distinguished
+      names.
+
+   e) X.500 describes subschema administration procedures to allow
+      language codes to be associated with particular attributes types.
+
+Editor's Address
+
+   Kurt D. Zeilenga
+   OpenLDAP Foundation
+
+   EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3866            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           July 2004
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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 currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                    [Page 15]
+

Propchange: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc3866.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    svn:eol-style = native

Added: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc4510.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc4510.txt?rev=592038&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc4510.txt
(added)
+++ directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc4510.txt
Mon Nov  5 07:16:53 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                   K. Zeilenga, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 4510                           OpenLDAP Foundation
+Obsoletes: 2251, 2252, 2253, 2254, 2255,                       June 2006
+           2256, 2829, 2830, 3377, 3771
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+             Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP):
+                    Technical Specification Road Map
+
+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
+
+   The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) is an Internet
+   protocol for accessing distributed directory services that act in
+   accordance with X.500 data and service models.  This document
+   provides a road map of the LDAP Technical Specification.
+
+1.  The LDAP Technical Specification
+
+   The technical specification detailing version 3 of the Lightweight
+   Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), an Internet Protocol, consists of
+   this document and the following documents:
+
+      LDAP: The Protocol [RFC4511]
+      LDAP: Directory Information Models [RFC4512]
+      LDAP: Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms [RFC4513]
+      LDAP: String Representation of Distinguished Names [RFC4514]
+      LDAP: String Representation of Search Filters [RFC4515]
+      LDAP: Uniform Resource Locator [RFC4516]
+      LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules [RFC4517]
+      LDAP: Internationalized String Preparation [RFC4518]
+      LDAP: Schema for User Applications [RFC4519]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4510                   LDAP: TS Road Map                   June 2006
+
+
+   The terms "LDAP" and "LDAPv3" are commonly used to refer informally
+   to the protocol specified by this technical specification.  The LDAP
+   suite, as defined here, should be formally identified in other
+   documents by a normative reference to this document.
+
+   LDAP is an extensible protocol.  Extensions to LDAP may be specified
+   in other documents.  Nomenclature denoting such combinations of
+   LDAP-plus-extensions is not defined by this document but may be
+   defined in some future document(s).  Extensions are expected to be
+   truly optional.  Considerations for the LDAP extensions described in
+   BCP 118, RFC 4521 [RFC4521] fully apply to this revision of the LDAP
+   Technical Specification.
+
+   IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) considerations for LDAP
+   described in BCP 64, RFC 4520 [RFC4520] apply fully to this revision
+   of the LDAP technical specification.
+
+1.1.  Conventions
+
+   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.  Relationship to X.500
+
+   This technical specification defines LDAP in terms of [X.500] as an
+   X.500 access mechanism.  An LDAP server MUST act in accordance with
+   the X.500 (1993) series of International Telecommunication Union -
+   Telecommunication Standardization (ITU-T) Recommendations when
+   providing the service.  However, it is not required that an LDAP
+   server make use of any X.500 protocols in providing this service.
+   For example, LDAP can be mapped onto any other directory system so
+   long as the X.500 data and service models [X.501][X.511], as used in
+   LDAP, are not violated in the LDAP interface.
+
+   This technical specification explicitly incorporates portions of
+   X.500(93).  Later revisions of X.500 do not automatically apply to
+   this technical specification.
+
+3.  Relationship to Obsolete Specifications
+
+   This technical specification, as defined in Section 1, obsoletes
+   entirely the previously defined LDAP technical specification defined
+   in RFC 3377 (and consisting of RFCs 2251-2256, 2829, 2830, 3771, and
+   3377 itself).  The technical specification was significantly
+   reorganized.
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4510                   LDAP: TS Road Map                   June 2006
+
+
+   This document replaces RFC 3377 as well as Section 3.3 of RFC 2251.
+   [RFC4512] replaces portions of RFC 2251, RFC 2252, and RFC 2256.
+   [RFC4511] replaces the majority RFC 2251, portions of RFC 2252, and
+   all of RFC 3771.  [RFC4513] replaces RFC 2829, RFC 2830, and portions
+   of RFC 2251.  [RFC4517] replaces the majority of RFC 2252 and
+   portions of RFC 2256.  [RFC4519] replaces the majority of RFC 2256.
+   [RFC4514] replaces RFC 2253.  [RFC4515] replaces RFC 2254.  [RFC4516]
+   replaces RFC 2255.
+
+   [RFC4518] is new to this revision of the LDAP technical
+   specification.
+
+   Each document of this specification contains appendices summarizing
+   changes to all sections of the specifications they replace.  Appendix
+   A.1 of this document details changes made to RFC 3377.  Appendix A.2
+   of this document details changes made to Section 3.3 of RFC 2251.
+
+   Additionally, portions of this technical specification update and/or
+   replace a number of other documents not listed above.  These
+   relationships are discussed in the documents detailing these portions
+   of this technical specification.
+
+4.  Security Considerations
+
+   LDAP security considerations are discussed in each document
+   comprising the technical specification.
+
+5.  Acknowledgements
+
+   This document is based largely on RFC 3377 by J. Hodges and R.
+   Morgan, a product of the LDAPBIS and LDAPEXT Working Groups.  The
+   document also borrows from RFC 2251 by M. Wahl, T. Howes, and S.
+   Kille, a product of the ASID Working Group.
+
+   This document is a product of the IETF LDAPBIS Working Group.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4510                   LDAP: TS Road Map                   June 2006
+
+
+6.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC4511]     Sermersheim, J., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+                 Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.
+
+   [RFC4512]     Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+                 (LDAP): Directory Information Models", RFC 4512, June
+                 2006.
+
+   [RFC4513]     Harrison, R., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+                 Protocol (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security
+                 Mechanisms", RFC 4513, June 2006.
+
+   [RFC4514]     Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+                 Protocol (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished
+                 Names", RFC 4514, June 2006.
+
+   [RFC4515]     Smith, M., Ed. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory
+                 Access Protocol (LDAP): String Representation of Search
+                 Filters", RFC 4515, June 2006.
+
+   [RFC4516]     Smith, M., Ed. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory
+                 Access Protocol (LDAP): Uniform Resource Locator", RFC
+                 4516, June 2006.
+
+   [RFC4517]     Legg, S., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+                 (LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules", RFC 4517, June
+                 2006.
+
+   [RFC4518]     Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+                 (LDAP): Internationalized String Preparation", RFC
+                 4518, June 2006.
+
+   [RFC4519]     Sciberras, A., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
+                 Protocol (LDAP): Schema for User Applications", RFC
+                 4519, June 2006.
+
+   [RFC4520]     Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
+                 (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory
+                 Access Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, June 2006.
+
+   [RFC4521]     Zeilenga, K., "Considerations for LDAP Extensions", BCP
+                 118, RFC 4521, June 2006.
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4510                   LDAP: TS Road Map                   June 2006
+
+
+   [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).
+
+   [X.511]       International Telecommunication Union -
+                 Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The
+                 Directory: Abstract Service Definition", X.511(1993)
+                 (also ISO/IEC 9594-3:1993).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4510                   LDAP: TS Road Map                   June 2006
+
+
+Appendix A.  Changes to Previous Documents
+
+   This appendix outlines changes this document makes relative to the
+   documents it replaces (in whole or in part).
+
+A.1. Changes to RFC 3377
+
+   This document is nearly a complete rewrite of RFC 3377 as much of the
+   material of RFC 3377 is no longer applicable.  The changes include
+   redefining the terms "LDAP" and "LDAPv3" to refer to this revision of
+   the technical specification.
+
+A.2. Changes to Section 3.3 of RFC 2251
+
+   The section was modified slightly (the word "document" was replaced
+   with "technical specification") to clarify that it applies to the
+   entire LDAP technical specification.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Kurt D. Zeilenga
+   OpenLDAP Foundation
+
+   EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 4510                   LDAP: TS Road Map                   June 2006
+
+
+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).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zeilenga                    Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+

Propchange: directory/sandbox/felixk/studio-ldapbrowser-help/src/main/resources/html/rfc/rfc4510.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    svn:eol-style = native



Mime
View raw message