[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: [ldapext] Password Policy OIDs

Hi Jim,
 
I have a highly delayed comment about pwdCheckQuality.

I assume that the OID is intended to define a collection of rules that
are used for password strength checking.  What do you think about making
pwdCheckQuality a list of OIDs?  This means that the list of strength
rules are defined by the attribute value, not the OID.  For example OID
"9.1.2.3.1" would define "Minimum 1 upper case character required", OID
"9.1.2.3.2" would define "No words from a local language dictionary",
etc...  Perhaps even another OID "9.1.2.3.3" would say "Password must
pass at least 80% of the rules defined in pwdCheckQuality."

pwdCheckQuality: 9.1.2.3.1 9.1.2.3.2 9.1.2.3.3 

The problem I see with a single OID is that if an administrator finds
that a particular strength rule is troublesome, the only way to disable
a rule would be to define a new rule set with a new OID.

Bob



________________________________

	From: ldapext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ldapext-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
	Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 10:16 PM
	To: andrew.sciberras@eB2Bcom.com
	Cc: ldapext@ietf.org
	Subject: Re: [ldapext] Password Policy OIDs
	
	
	Yeah, I suppose we could do that as well. I'm looking at the
differences between the 00 version and the 09 version:
	 
	For the pwdPolicy class:
	- pwdDefaultStorageScheme has been dropped
	- pwdFailureCountResetTime has changed to
pwdFailureCountInterval 
	- pwdGraceLoginLimit has changed to pwdGraceAuthNLimit 
	- pwdCheckSyntax has changed to pwdCheckQuality. It's syntax
changed from boolean to integer, but I'm proposing to chainge it to oid

	- pwdAttribute has been added as a MUST
	- The usage of all attributes on pwdPolicy has changed from
directoryOperation to userOperation
	- The OID assigned to all attribute has changed at least once
	 
	There used to be a pwdInfoObj aux class which defined the state
attribute. That's gone, but the attributes have gone through these
changes:
	- pwdExpirationTime and pwdAllowChangeTime have been replaced by
pwdChangedTime
	- pwdExpWarned has been dropped
	- pwdRetryCount and pwdRetryCountResetTime have been replaced by
pwdFailureTime
	- pwdAccountUnlockTime has been replaced by pwdAccountLockedTime
	- pwdGraceLeft has been replaced by pwdGraceUseTime
	- The data format of pwdHistory has changed
	- pwdReset has been added
	- pwdPolicySubEntry has been added
	- The OIDs of these have all changed at least once as well
	 
	Version 04 (July 2001) introduced the OIDs (prior to that, they
actually used OIDs relative to an unnamed arc. Less has changed between
the 04 and 08 versions in the schema definitions, but semantic changed
(including buggy specifications) have changed over those four versions.
I also believe most implementations were written to one of 04 - 07
	 
	So, it seems a good time to me to update the OIDs, as well as
the names. I prefer to keep names that I don't believe will change
syntactically or semantically. These include:
	pwdMinAge, pwdMaxAge, and pwdInHistory (though I might like
pwdHistorySize better), pwdHistory (though I can see the format possibly
changing, thus a name change would be good), and pwdPolicySubentry. I
can think of similar or better names for the rest of them.
	
	Jim

	>>> Andrew Sciberras <andrew.sciberras@eB2Bcom.com> 10/25/04
8:11:01 PM >>>
	G'Day Jim,
	
	I think that this is a good idea, however your email suggests
that 
	changing the OID's will disambiguate the semantics by which a
password 
	policy is being enforced. Do you plan to change the short name 
	descriptors of the attributes as well?
	
	
	Andrew Sciberras
	
	
	Jim Sermersheim wrote:
	
	> This does bring up another point I wanted to discuss though...
	> 
	> This draft was written way back when it was popular to assign
OIDs in
	> I-D's. A practice that has lost favor partly due to
implementations
	> using those OIDs and experiencing problems as semantics
changed but OIDs
	> didn't.
	> 
	> I'd like to move this I-D forward, and I don't want to be tied
to any
	> semantics defined in previous versions. I propose that we
replace the
	> existing OIDs with requests for IANA OIDs. This way, existing
	> implementations won't appear to be invalid according to the
current and
	> future revisions, and I won't have to worry so much about
breaking
	> existing implementations.
	> 
	> What do other's think?
	> 
	> Jim
	> 
	


_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext