    Network Working Group                                        K. Zeilenga
    Request for Comments: 4520                           OpenLDAP Foundation
    BCP: 64                                                        June 2006
    Obsoletes: 3383
    Category: Best Current Practice

         Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for
                the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)

    Status of This Memo

       This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
       Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
       improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

    Copyright Notice

       Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

    Abstract

       This document provides procedures for registering extensible elements
       of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).  The document
       also provides guidelines to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
       (IANA) describing conditions under which new values can be assigned.

    1.  Introduction

       The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol [RFC4510] (LDAP) is an
       extensible protocol.  LDAP supports:

          -  the addition of new operations,
          -  the extension of existing operations, and
          -  the extensible schema.

       This document details procedures for registering values used to
       unambiguously identify extensible elements of the protocol, including
       the following:

          - LDAP message types
          - LDAP extended operations and controls
          - LDAP result codes
          - LDAP authentication methods
          - LDAP attribute description options
          - Object Identifier descriptors

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

       These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers
       Authority (IANA).

       In addition, this document provides guidelines to IANA describing the
       conditions under which new values can be assigned.

       This document replaces RFC 3383.

    2.  Terminology and Conventions

       This section details terms and conventions used in this document.

    2.1.  Policy Terminology

       The terms "IESG Approval", "Standards Action", "IETF Consensus",
       "Specification Required", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
       and "Private Use" are used as defined in BCP 26 [RFC2434].

       The term "registration owner" (or "owner") refers to the party
       authorized to change a value's registration.

    2.2.  Requirement Terminology

       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].  In
       this case, "the specification", as used by BCP 14, refers to the
       processing of protocols being submitted to the IETF standards
       process.

    2.3.  Common ABNF Productions

       A number of syntaxes in this document are described using ABNF
       [RFC4234].  These syntaxes rely on the following common productions:

             ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A    ; "A"-"Z" / "a"-"z"
             LDIGIT = %x31-39             ; "1"-"9"
             DIGIT = %x30 / LDIGIT        ; "0"-"9"
             HYPHEN = %x2D                ; "-"
             DOT = %x2E                   ; "."
             number = DIGIT / ( LDIGIT 1*DIGIT )
             keychar = ALPHA / DIGIT / HYPHEN
             leadkeychar = ALPHA
             keystring = leadkeychar *keychar
             keyword = keystring

       Keywords are case insensitive.

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

    3.  IANA Considerations for LDAP

       This section details each kind of protocol value that can be
       registered and provides IANA guidelines on how to assign new values.

       IANA may reject obviously bogus registrations.

       LDAP values specified in RFCs MUST be registered.  Other LDAP values,
       except those in private-use name spaces, SHOULD be registered.  RFCs
       SHOULD NOT reference, use, or otherwise recognize unregistered LDAP
       values.

    3.1.  Object Identifiers

       Numerous LDAP schema and protocol elements are identified by Object
       Identifiers (OIDs) [X.680].  Specifications that assign OIDs to
       elements SHOULD state who delegated the OIDs for their use.

       For IETF-developed elements, specifications SHOULD use OIDs under
       "Internet Directory Numbers" (1.3.6.1.1.x).  For elements developed
       by others, any properly delegated OID can be used, including those
       under "Internet Directory Numbers" (1.3.6.1.1.x) or "Internet Private
       Enterprise Numbers" (1.3.6.1.4.1.x).

       Internet Directory Numbers (1.3.6.1.1.x) will be assigned upon Expert
       Review with Specification Required.  Only one OID per specification
       will be assigned.  The specification MAY then assign any number of
       OIDs within this arc without further coordination with IANA.

       Internet Private Enterprise Numbers (1.3.6.1.4.1.x) are assigned by
       IANA <http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/enterprise.pl>.  Practices for IANA
       assignment of Internet Private Enterprise Numbers are detailed in RFC
       2578 [RFC2578].

       To avoid interoperability problems between early implementations of a
       "work in progress" and implementations of the published specification
       (e.g., the RFC), experimental OIDs SHOULD be used in "works in
       progress" and early implementations.  OIDs under the Internet
       Experimental OID arc (1.3.6.1.3.x) may be used for this purpose.
       Practices for IANA assignment of these Internet Experimental numbers
       are detailed in RFC 2578 [RFC2578].

    3.2.  Protocol Mechanisms

       LDAP provides a number of Root DSA-Specific Entry (DSE) attributes
       for discovery of protocol mechanisms identified by OIDs, including
       the supportedControl, supportedExtension, and supportedFeatures
       attributes [RFC4512].

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

       A registry of OIDs used for discovery of protocol mechanisms is
       provided to allow implementors and others to locate the technical
       specification for these protocol mechanisms.  Future specifications
       of additional Root DSE attributes holding values identifying protocol
       mechanisms MAY extend this registry for their values.

       Protocol mechanisms are registered on a First Come First Served
       basis.

    3.3.  LDAP Syntaxes

       This registry provides a listing of LDAP syntaxes [RFC4512].  Each
       LDAP syntax is identified by an OID.  This registry is provided to
       allow implementors and others to locate the technical specification
       describing a particular LDAP Syntax.

       LDAP Syntaxes are registered on a First Come First Served with
       Specification Required basis.

       Note: Unlike object classes, attribute types, and various other kinds
             of schema elements, descriptors are not used in LDAP to
             identify LDAP Syntaxes.

    3.4.  Object Identifier Descriptors

       LDAP allows short descriptive names (or descriptors) to be used
       instead of a numeric Object Identifier to identify select protocol
       extensions [RFC4511], schema elements [RFC4512], LDAP URL [RFC4516]
       extensions, and other objects.

       Although the protocol allows the same descriptor to refer to
       different object identifiers in certain cases and the registry
       supports multiple registrations of the same descriptor (each
       indicating a different kind of schema element and different object
       identifier), multiple registrations of the same descriptor are to be
       avoided.  All such multiple registration requests require Expert
       Review.

       Descriptors are restricted to strings of UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded
       Unicode characters restricted by the following ABNF:

          name = keystring

       Descriptors are case insensitive.

       Multiple names may be assigned to a given OID.  For purposes of
       registration, an OID is to be represented in numeric OID form (e.g.,
       1.1.0.23.40) conforming to the following ABNF:

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

          numericoid = number 1*( DOT number )

       While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon
       descriptors, they should be short.  Descriptors longer than 48
       characters may be viewed as too long to register.

       A value ending with a hyphen ("-") reserves all descriptors that
       start with that value.  For example, the registration of the option
       "descrFamily-" reserves all options that start with "descrFamily-"
       for some related purpose.

       Descriptors beginning with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be
       registered.

       Descriptors beginning with "e-" are reserved for experiments and will
       be registered on a First Come First Served basis.

       All other descriptors require Expert Review to be registered.

       The registrant need not "own" the OID being named.

       The OID name space is managed by the ISO/IEC Joint Technical
       Committee 1 - Subcommittee 6.

    3.5.  AttributeDescription Options

       An AttributeDescription [RFC4512] can contain zero or more options
       specifying additional semantics.  An option SHALL be restricted to a
       string of UTF-8 encoded Unicode characters limited by the following
       ABNF:

          option = keystring

       Options are case insensitive.

       While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon option
       strings, they should be short.  Options longer than 24 characters may
       be viewed as too long to register.

       Values ending with a hyphen ("-") reserve all option names that start
       with the name.  For example, the registration of the option
       "optionFamily-" reserves all options that start with "optionFamily-"
       for some related purpose.

       Options beginning with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be
       registered.

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

       Options beginning with "e-" are reserved for experiments and will be
       registered on a First Come First Served basis.

       All other options require Standards Action or Expert Review with
       Specification Required to be registered.

    3.6.  LDAP Message Types

       Each protocol message is encapsulated in an LDAPMessage envelope
       [RFC4511.  The protocolOp CHOICE indicates the type of message
       encapsulated.  Each message type consists of an ASN.1 identifier in
       the form of a keyword and a non-negative choice number.  The choice
       number is combined with the class (APPLICATION) and data type
       (CONSTRUCTED or PRIMITIVE) to construct the BER tag in the message's
       encoding.  The choice numbers for existing protocol messages are
       implicit in the protocol's ASN.1 defined in [RFC4511].

       New values will be registered upon Standards Action.

       Note: LDAP provides extensible messages that reduce but do not
             eliminate the need to add new message types.

    3.7.  LDAP Authentication Method

       The LDAP Bind operation supports multiple authentication methods
       [RFC4511].  Each authentication choice consists of an ASN.1
       identifier in the form of a keyword and a non-negative integer.

       The registrant SHALL classify the authentication method usage using
       one of the following terms:

             COMMON      - method is appropriate for common use on the
                           Internet.
             LIMITED USE - method is appropriate for limited use.
             OBSOLETE    - method has been deprecated or otherwise found to
                           be inappropriate for any use.

       Methods without publicly available specifications SHALL NOT be
       classified as COMMON.  New registrations of the class OBSOLETE cannot
       be registered.

       New authentication method integers in the range 0-1023 require
       Standards Action to be registered.  New authentication method
       integers in the range 1024-4095 require Expert Review with
       Specification Required.  New authentication method integers in the
       range 4096-16383 will be registered on a First Come First Served
       basis.  Keywords associated with integers in the range 0-4095 SHALL
       NOT start with "e-" or "x-".  Keywords associated with integers in

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

       the range 4096-16383 SHALL start with "e-".  Values greater than or
       equal to 16384 and keywords starting with "x-" are for Private Use
       and cannot be registered.

       Note: LDAP supports Simple Authentication and Security Layers
             [RFC4422] as an authentication choice.  SASL is an extensible
             authentication framework.

    3.8.  LDAP Result Codes

       LDAP result messages carry a resultCode enumerated value to indicate
       the outcome of the operation [RFC4511].  Each result code consists of
       an ASN.1 identifier in the form of a keyword and a non-negative
       integer.

       New resultCodes integers in the range 0-1023 require Standards Action
       to be registered.  New resultCode integers in the range 1024-4095
       require Expert Review with Specification Required.  New resultCode
       integers in the range 4096-16383 will be registered on a First Come
       First Served basis.  Keywords associated with integers in the range
       0-4095 SHALL NOT start with "e-" or "x-".  Keywords associated with
       integers in the range 4096-16383 SHALL start with "e-".  Values
       greater than or equal to 16384 and keywords starting with "x-" are
       for Private Use and cannot be registered.

    3.9.  LDAP Search Scope

       LDAP SearchRequest messages carry a scope-enumerated value to
       indicate the extent of search within the DIT [RFC4511].  Each search
       value consists of an ASN.1 identifier in the form of a keyword and a
       non-negative integer.

       New scope integers in the range 0-1023 require Standards Action to be
       registered.  New scope integers in the range 1024-4095 require Expert
       Review with Specification Required.  New scope integers in the range
       4096-16383 will be registered on a First Come First Served basis.
       Keywords associated with integers in the range 0-4095 SHALL NOT start
       with "e-" or "x-".  Keywords associated with integers in the range
       4096-16383 SHALL start with "e-".  Values greater than or equal to
       16384 and keywords starting with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot
       be registered.

    3.10.  LDAP Filter Choice

       LDAP filters are used in making assertions against an object
       represented in the directory [RFC4511].  The Filter CHOICE indicates
       a type of assertion.  Each Filter CHOICE consists of an ASN.1
       identifier in the form of a keyword and a non-negative choice number.

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

       The choice number is combined with the class (APPLICATION) and data
       type (CONSTRUCTED or PRIMITIVE) to construct the BER tag in the
       message's encoding.

       Note: LDAP provides the extensibleMatching choice, which reduces but
             does not eliminate the need to add new filter choices.

    3.11.  LDAP ModifyRequest Operation Type

       The LDAP ModifyRequest carries a sequence of modification operations
       [RFC4511].  Each kind (e.g., add, delete, replace) of operation
       consists of an ASN.1 identifier in the form of a keyword and a non-
       negative integer.

       New operation type integers in the range 0-1023 require Standards
       Action to be registered.  New operation type integers in the range
       1024-4095 require Expert Review with Specification Required.  New
       operation type integers in the range 4096-16383 will be registered on
       a First Come First Served basis.  Keywords associated with integers
       in the range 0-4095 SHALL NOT start with "e-" or "x-".  Keywords
       associated with integers in the range 4096-16383 SHALL start with
       "e-".  Values greater than or equal to 16384 and keywords starting
       with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be registered.

    3.12.  LDAP authzId Prefixes

       Authorization Identities in LDAP are strings conforming to the
       <authzId> production [RFC4513].  This production is extensible.  Each
       new specific authorization form is identified by a prefix string
       conforming to the following ABNF:

             prefix = keystring COLON
             COLON = %x3A ; COLON (":" U+003A)

       Prefixes are case insensitive.

       While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon prefix
       strings, they should be short.  Prefixes longer than 12 characters
       may be viewed as too long to register.

       Prefixes beginning with "x-" are for Private Use and cannot be
       registered.

       Prefixes beginning with "e-" are reserved for experiments and will be
       registered on a First Come First Served basis.

       All other prefixes require Standards Action or Expert Review with
       Specification Required to be registered.

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

    3.13.  Directory Systems Names

       The IANA-maintained "Directory Systems Names" registry [IANADSN] of
       valid keywords for well-known attributes was used in the LDAPv2
       string representation of a distinguished name [RFC1779].  LDAPv2 is
       now Historic [RFC3494].

       Directory systems names are not known to be used in any other
       context.  LDAPv3 [RFC4514] uses Object Identifier Descriptors
       [Section 3.2] (which have a different syntax than directory system
       names).

       New Directory System Names will no longer be accepted.  For
       historical purposes, the current list of registered names should
       remain publicly available.

    4.  Registration Procedure

       The procedure given here MUST be used by anyone who wishes to use a
       new value of a type described in Section 3 of this document.

       The first step is for the requester to fill out the appropriate form.
       Templates are provided in Appendix A.

       If the policy is Standards Action, the completed form SHOULD be
       provided to the IESG with the request for Standards Action.  Upon
       approval of the Standards Action, the IESG SHALL forward the request
       (possibly revised) to IANA.  The IESG SHALL be regarded as the
       registration owner of all values requiring Standards Action.

       If the policy is Expert Review, the requester SHALL post the
       completed form to the <directory@apps.ietf.org> mailing list for
       public review.  The review period is two (2) weeks.  If a revised
       form is later submitted, the review period is restarted.  Anyone may
       subscribe to this list by sending a request to <directory-
       request@apps.ietf.org>.  During the review, objections may be raised
       by anyone (including the Expert) on the list.  After completion of
       the review, the Expert, based on public comments, SHALL either
       approve the request and forward it to the IANA OR deny the request.
       In either case, the Expert SHALL promptly notify the requester of the
       action.  Actions of the Expert may be appealed [RFC2026].  The Expert
       is appointed by Applications Area Directors.  The requester is viewed
       as the registration owner of values registered under Expert Review.

       If the policy is First Come First Served, the requester SHALL submit
       the completed form directly to the IANA: <iana@iana.org>.  The
       requester is viewed as the registration owner of values registered
       under First Come First Served.

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

       Neither the Expert nor IANA will take position on the claims of
       copyright or trademark issues regarding completed forms.

       Prior to submission of the Internet Draft (I-D) to the RFC Editor but
       after IESG review and tentative approval, the document editor SHOULD
       revise the I-D to use registered values.

    5.  Registration Maintenance

       This section discusses maintenance of registrations.

    5.1.  Lists of Registered Values

       IANA makes lists of registered values readily available to the
       Internet community on its web site: <http://www.iana.org/>.

    5.2.  Change Control

       The registration owner MAY update the registration subject to the
       same constraints and review as with new registrations.  In cases
       where the registration owner is unable or is unwilling to make
       necessary updates, the IESG MAY assume ownership of the registration
       in order to update the registration.

    5.3.  Comments

       For cases where others (anyone other than the registration owner)
       have significant objections to the claims in a registration and the
       registration owner does not agree to change the registration,
       comments MAY be attached to a registration upon Expert Review.  For
       registrations owned by the IESG, the objections SHOULD be addressed
       by initiating a request for Expert Review.

       The form of these requests is ad hoc, but MUST include the specific
       objections to be reviewed and SHOULD contain (directly or by
       reference) materials supporting the objections.

    6.  Security Considerations

       The security considerations detailed in BCP 26 [RFC2434] are
       generally applicable to this document.  Additional security
       considerations specific to each name space are discussed in Section
       3, where appropriate.

       Security considerations for LDAP are discussed in documents
       comprising the technical specification [RFC4510].

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

    7.  Acknowledgement

       This document is a product of the IETF LDAP Revision (LDAPBIS)
       Working Group (WG).  This document is a revision of RFC 3383, also a
       product of the LDAPBIS WG.

       This document includes text borrowed from "Guidelines for Writing an
       IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC2434] by Thomas Narten and
       Harald Alvestrand.

    8.  References

    8.1.  Normative References

       [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
                  3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

       [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

       [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
                  IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
                  October 1998.

       [RFC2578]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
                  "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
                  STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

       [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
                  10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

       [RFC4234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
                  Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

       [RFC4510]  Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
                  (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510, June
                  2006.

       [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.

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

       [RFC4516]  Smith, M., Ed. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access
                  Protocol (LDAP): Uniform Resource Locator", RFC 4516, June
                  2006.

       [Unicode]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
                  3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0"
                  (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5),
                  as amended by the "Unicode Standard Annex #27: Unicode
                  3.1" (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the
                  "Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2"
                  (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/).

       [X.680]    International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
                  Standardization Sector, "Abstract Syntax Notation One
                  (ASN.1) - Specification of Basic Notation", X.680(2002)
                  (also ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002).

    8.2.  Informative References

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

       [RFC3494]  Zeilenga, K.,"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
                  version 2 (LDAPv2) to Historic Status", RFC 3494, March
                  2003.

       [RFC4514]  Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
                  (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC
                  4514, June 2006.

       [RFC4422]  Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
                  Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June
                  2006.

       [IANADSN]  IANA, "Directory Systems Names",
                  http://www.iana.org/assignments/directory-system-names.

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

    Appendix A.  Registration Templates

       This appendix provides registration templates for registering new
       LDAP values.  Note that more than one value may be requested by
       extending the template by listing multiple values, or through use of
       tables.

    A.1.  LDAP Object Identifier Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP OID Registration

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (I-D)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    A.2.  LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration

       Object Identifier:

       Description:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Usage: (One of Control or Extension or Feature or other)

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

    A.3.  LDAP Syntax Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Syntax Registration

       Object Identifier:

       Description:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    A.4.  LDAP Descriptor Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration

       Descriptor (short name):

       Object Identifier:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Usage: (One of administrative role, attribute type, matching rule,
         name form, object class, URL extension, or other)

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

    A.5.  LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Attribute Description Option Registration
       Option Name:

       Family of Options: (YES or NO)

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    A.6.  LDAP Message Type Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Message Type Registration

       LDAP Message Name:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (Approved I-D)

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    A.7.  LDAP Authentication Method Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Authentication Method Registration

       Authentication Method Name:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Intended Usage: (One of COMMON, LIMITED-USE, OBSOLETE)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

    A.8.  LDAP Result Code Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Result Code Registration

       Result Code Name:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    A.8.  LDAP Search Scope Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Search Scope Registration

       Search Scope Name:

       Filter Scope String:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 16]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

    A.9.  LDAP Filter Choice Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP Filter Choice Registration

       Filter Choice Name:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    A.10.  LDAP ModifyRequest Operation Registration Template

       Subject: Request for LDAP ModifyRequest Operation Registration

       ModifyRequest Operation Name:

       Person & email address to contact for further information:

       Specification: (RFC, I-D, URI)

       Author/Change Controller:

       Comments:

       (Any comments that the requester deems relevant to the request.)

    Appendix B.  Changes since RFC 3383

       This informative appendix provides a summary of changes made since
       RFC 3383.

          -  Object Identifier Descriptors practices were updated to require
             all descriptors defined in RFCs to be registered and
             recommending all other descriptors (excepting those in
             private-use name space) be registered.  Additionally, all
             requests for multiple registrations of the same descriptor are
             now subject to Expert Review.

          -  Protocol Mechanisms practices were updated to include values of
             the 'supportedFeatures' attribute type.

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 17]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             June 2006

          -  LDAP Syntax, Search Scope, Filter Choice, ModifyRequest
             operation, and authzId prefixes registries were added.

          -  References to RFCs comprising the LDAP technical specifications
             have been updated to latest revisions.

          -  References to ISO 10646 have been replaced with [Unicode].

          -  The "Assigned Values" appendix providing initial registry
             values was removed.

          -  Numerous editorial changes were made.

    Author's Address

       Kurt D. Zeilenga
       OpenLDAP Foundation

       EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org

    Zeilenga                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 18]

    RFC 4520              IANA Considerations for LDAP             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                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 19]