Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (RFC1777)
Original Publication Date: 1995-Mar-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-12
Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)
W. Yeong: AUTHOR [+2]
The protocol described in this document is designed to provide access to the X.500 Directory while not incurring the resource requirements of the Directory Access Protocol (DAP).This protocol is specifically targeted at simple management applications and browser applications that provide simple read/write interactive access to the X.500 Directory, and is intended to be a complement to the DAP itself. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Network Working Group W. Yeong Request for Comments: 1777 Performance Systems International Obsoletes: 1487 T. Howes Category: Standards Track University of Michigan S. Kille ISODE Consortium March 1995
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
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.
The protocol described in this document is designed to provide access to the X.500 Directory while not incurring the resource requirements of the Directory Access Protocol (DAP). This protocol is specifically targeted at simple management applications and browser applications that provide simple read/write interactive access to the X.500 Directory, and is intended to be a complement to the DAP itself.
Key aspects of LDAP are:
- Protocol elements are carried directly over TCP or other transport, bypassing much of the session/presentation overhead.
- Many protocol data elements are encoding as ordinary strings (e.g., Distinguished Names).
- A lightweight BER encoding is used to encode all protocol elements.
The tremendous interest in X.500 [1,2] technology in the Internet has lead to efforts to reduce the high "cost of entry" associated with use of the technology, such as the Directory Assistance Service  and DIXIE . While efforts such as these have met with success, they have been solutions based on particular implementations and as such have limited applicability. This document continues the efforts to define Directory protocol alternatives but departs from previous efforts in that it consciously avoids dependence on particular
Yeong, Howes & Kille [Page 1]
RFC 1777 LDAP March 1995
2. Protocol Model
The general model adopted by this protocol is one of clients performing protocol operations against servers. In this model, this is accomplished by a client transmitting a protocol request describing the operation to be performed to a server, which is then responsible for performing the necessary operations on the Directory. Upon completion of the necessary operations, the server returns a response containing any results or errors to the requesting client. In keeping with the goal of easing the costs associated with use of the Directory, it is an objective of this protocol to minimize the complexity of clients so as to facilitate widespread deployment of applications capable of utilizing the Directory.
Note that, although servers are required to return responses whenever such responses are defined in the protocol, there is no requirement for synchronous behavior on the part of either client or server implementations: requests and responses for multiple operations may be exchanged by client and servers in any order, as l...