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

Re: Adding Members to Groups



On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 01:46:42AM +0500, Aneela Saleem wrote:

> So which objectClass best suits for this situation?

If you want to have groups that are easy to adminster and are capable
of being empty then you should consider groupOfEntries. A quick scan
through the Apache Ranger docs suggests that you can configure the
group class and group search so this may well work. You will need to
add the groupOfEntries class to your LDAP server schema as it is not
likely to be there by default.

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> wrote:

>     Or rather ietf-ldapext *WG* should make progress with
>     draft-findlay-ldap-groupofentries... ;-)

You can use the class defined in that draft even if IETF don't
officially endorse it. Copy attached to this message.

Andrew
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 From Andrew Findlay, Skills 1st Ltd                 |
| Consultant in large-scale systems, networks, and directory services |
|     http://www.skills-1st.co.uk/                +44 1628 782565     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Network Working Group                                         A. Findlay
Internet-Draft                                            Skills 1st Ltd
Expires: March 16, 2008                               September 13, 2007


                  The LDAP groupOfEntries object class
                  draft-findlay-ldap-groupofentries-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 16, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This memo describes the LDAP groupOfEntries object class which is a
   replacement for the existing groupOfNames class.  The new class
   permits the creation of empty groups.

   If approved as a Standards Track document, this document will update
   RFC4519 [2]

Document Intent

   This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and
   revision, submitted to the RFC Editor as a Standards Track document.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.  Technical discussion of this
   document will take place on the IETF LDAP Extensions mailing list
   <ldapext@ietf.org>.  Please send editorial comments directly to the
   author <andrew.findlay@skills-1st.co.uk>


1.  Introduction

   A groupOfNames object class has existed since the earliest X.521 [1]
   standard.  It has an identical definition in LDAP (RFC4519 [2]).  The
   class is used to define entries holding DN-valued member attributes,
   each value pointing to an entry that represents a single member of
   the group being described, or to another entry of type groupOfNames.

   groupOfNames is a structural object class, so it is often the only
   class used in the definition of group objects.

   Experience has shown that the definition of groupOfNames causes
   difficulties in practice.  In particular, the fact that 'member' is a
   mandatory attribute means that it is not possible to create an empty
   group or to delete the last member from a group.  This leads to
   artificial tricks such as making every group a member of itself, or
   adding a dummy member to every group when it is created.  These
   tricks in turn make the management of groups more complex and prone
   to error.  Groups are commonly used to control access to resources,
   so management errors can lead to security risks.

   There does not appear to be any good reason for the 'member'
   attribute to be mandatory.  This memo describes a new object class
   called groupOfEntries that is equivalent to groupOfNames in all other
   respects but which makes 'member' an optional attribute.


2.  The existing groupOfNames object class

   RFC4519 [2] contains this definition:

   The 'groupOfNames' object class is the basis of an entry that
   represents a set of named objects including information related to
   the purpose or maintenance of the set.  (Source: X.521 [1])

         ( 2.5.6.9 NAME 'groupOfNames'
            SUP top
            STRUCTURAL
            MUST ( member $
                  cn )
            MAY ( businessCategory $
                  seeAlso $
                  owner $
                  ou $
                  o $
                  description ) )

   The inclusion of 'member' in the 'MUST' section of the definition
   prevents empty groups from being created.


3.  The groupOfEntries object class

   The 'groupOfEntries' object class is the basis of an entry that
   represents a set of named objects including information related to
   the purpose or maintenance of the set.  It should be used in
   preference to the 'groupOfNames' object class.

         ( 1.2.826.0.1.3458854.2.1.1.1 NAME 'groupOfEntries'
            SUP top
            STRUCTURAL
            MUST ( cn )
            MAY ( member $
                  businessCategory $
                  seeAlso $
                  owner $
                  ou $
                  o $
                  description ) )

   This object class allows groups to be empty.  In all other respects
   it behaves like the groupOfNames object class.

   The OID assigned to this object class is delegated by Skills 1st Ltd.


4.  Effect on other documents

   This draft deprecates the use of the groupOfNames object class in
   RFC4519 [2] and replaces it with the groupOfEntries class.


5.  IANA considerations

   It is requested that IANA register upon Standards Action the
   groupOfEntries Object Identifier Descriptor and its associated OID.


6.  Security considerations

   Groups are commonly used to define access permissions to directory
   entries and resources in other services.  Allowing for empty groups
   avoids the risks associated with leaving a dummy placeholder member
   in group entries, so security is improved.


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Michael
   Stroeder to the first draft of this document.


7.  Informative References

   [1]  "The Directory: Selected Object Classes", ITU-T
        Recommendation X.521, March 1988.

   [2]  "LDAP: Schema for User Applications", RFC 4519, June 2006.


Author's Address

   Andrew Findlay
   Skills 1st Ltd
   2 Cedar Chase
   Taplow
   Maidenhead  SL6 0EU
   GB

   Phone: +44 1628 782565
   Email: andrew.findlay@skills-1st.co.uk
   URI:   http://www.skills-1st.co.uk/


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).