





Network Working Group                                        K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 3494                           OpenLDAP Foundation
Obsoletes: 1484, 1485, 1487, 1488, 1777,                      March 2003
           1778, 1779, 1781, 2559
Category: Informational


        Lightweight Directory Access Protocol version 2 (LDAPv2)
                           to Historic Status

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document recommends the retirement of version 2 of the
   Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAPv2) and other dependent
   specifications, and discusses the reasons for doing so.  This
   document recommends RFC 1777, 1778, 1779, 1781, and 2559 (as well as
   documents they superseded) be moved to Historic status.

Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, version 2

   LDAPv2 (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, version 2)
   [RFC1777][RFC1778][RFC1779] is an Internet Protocol used to access
   X.500-based directory services.  This document recommends that LDAPv2
   and other dependent specifications be retired.  Specifically, this
   document recommends RFC 1777, 1778, 1779, 1781, and 2559 (as well as
   documents they superseded) be moved to Historic status.  The reasons
   for taking this action are discussed below.

   LDAPv2 was published in 1995 as a Draft Standard.  Since its
   publication, a number of inadequacies in the specification have been
   discovered.  LDAPv3 [RFC3377] was published in 1997 as a Proposed
   Standard to resolve these inadequacies.  While LDAPv3 is currently
   being revised [LDAPbis], it is clearly technically superior to
   LDAPv2.

   The LDAPv2 specification is not generally adhered to; that is, an
   independently developed implementation of the specification would not
   interoperate with existing implementations, as existing



Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3494               LDAPv2 to Historic Status              March 2003


   implementations use syntaxes and semantics different than those
   prescribed by the specification.  Below are two examples.

      1) Existing LDAPv2 implementations do not commonly restrict
         textual values to IA5 (ASCII) and T.61 (Teletex) as required by
         RFC 1777 and RFC 1778.  Some existing implementations use ISO
         8859-1, others use UCS-2, others use UTF-8, and some use the
         current local character set.

      2) RFC 1777 requires use of the textual string associated with
         AttributeType in the X.500 Directory standards.  However,
         existing implementations use the NAME associated with the
         AttributeType in the LDAPv3 schema [RFC2252].  That is, LDAPv2
         requires the organization name attribute be named
         "organizationName", not "o".

   In addition, LDAPv2 does not provide adequate security features for
   use on the Internet.  LDAPv2 does not provide any mechanism for data
   integrity or confidentiality.  LDAPv2 does not support modern
   authentication mechanisms such as those based on DIGEST-MD5, Kerberos
   V, and X.509 public keys.

Dependent Specifications

   Since the publication of RFC 1777, 1778, and 1779, there have been
   additional standard track RFCs published that are dependent on these
   technical specifications, including:

      "Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly Naming"
      [RFC1781]

         and

      "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Operational Protocols -
      LDAPv2" [RFC2559].

   RFC 1781 is a technical specification for "User Friendly Naming"
   which replies on particular syntaxes described in RFC 1779.  RFC
   2253, which replaced RFC 1779, eliminated support for the "User
   Friendly Naming" syntaxes.  RFC 1781 is currently a Proposed
   Standard.

   RFC 2559 is primarily an applicability statement for using LDAPv2 in
   providing Public Key Infrastructure.  It depends on RFC 1777 and
   updates RFC 1778.  If LDAPv2 is moved to Historic status, so must
   this document.  RFC 2559 is currently a Proposed Standard.





Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 3494               LDAPv2 to Historic Status              March 2003


Security Considerations

   LDAPv2 does not provide adequate security mechanisms for general use
   on the Internet.  LDAPv3 offers far superior security mechanisms,
   including support for strong authentication and data confidentiality
   services.  Moving LDAPv2 to Historic may improve the security of the
   Internet by encouraging implementation and use of LDAPv3.

Recommendations

   Developers should not implement LDAPv2 per RFC 1777, as such would
   result in an implementation that will not interoperate with existing
   LDAPv2 implementations.  Developers should implement LDAPv3 instead.

   Deployers should recognize that significant interoperability issues
   exist between current LDAPv2 implementations.  LDAPv3 is clearly
   technically superior to LDAPv2 and hence should be used instead.

   It is recommended that RFC 1777, RFC 1778, RFC 1779, RFC 1781, and
   RFC 2559 be moved to Historic status.

   The previously superseded specifications RFC 1484, 1485, 1487, and
   1488 (by RFC 1781, 1779, 1777, and 1778, respectively) should also be
   moved to Historic status.

Acknowledgment

   The author would like to thank the designers of LDAPv2 for their
   contribution to the Internet community.

Normative References

   [RFC1777] Yeong, W., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory
             Access Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995.

   [RFC1778] Howes, T., Kille, S., Yeong, W. and C. Robbins, "The String
             Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes", RFC 1778,
             March 1995.

   [RFC1779] Kille, S., "A String Representation of Distinguished
             Names", RFC 1779, March 1995.

   [RFC1781] Kille, S., "Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User
             Friendly Naming", RFC 1781, March 1995.

   [RFC2559] Boeyen, S., Howes, T. and P. Richard, "Internet X.509
             Public Key Infrastructure Operational Protocols - LDAPv2",
             RFC 2559, April 1999.



Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 3494               LDAPv2 to Historic Status              March 2003


Informative References

   [LDAPbis] IETF LDAP Revision (v3) Working Group (LDAPbis),
             <http://www.ietf.org/html-charters/ldapbis-charter.html>.

   [RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
             Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
             September 2002.

   [RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille,
             "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):  Attribute
             Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.

   [RFC2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory
             Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of
             Distinguished Names", RFC 2253, December 1997.

Author's Address

   Kurt D. Zeilenga
   OpenLDAP Foundation

   EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org




























Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 3494               LDAPv2 to Historic Status              March 2003


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 5]

