Network Working Group K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 3352 OpenLDAP Foundation
Obsoletes: 1798 March 2003
Category: Informational
Network Working Group K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 3352 OpenLDAP Foundation
Obsoletes: 1798 March 2003
Category: Informational
Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) to Historic Status
到历史状态的无连接轻型目录访问协议（CLDAP）
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2003年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
The Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) technical specification, RFC 1798, was published in 1995 as a Proposed Standard. This document discusses the reasons why the CLDAP technical specification has not been furthered on the Standard Track. This document recommends that RFC 1798 be moved to Historic status.
无连接轻型目录访问协议（CLDAP）技术规范RFC1798于1995年作为提议的标准发布。本文件讨论了CLDAP技术规范未在标准轨道上进一步完善的原因。本文件建议将RFC 1798移至历史状态。
Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) [RFC1798] was published in 1995 as a Proposed Standard. The protocol was targeted at applications which require lookup of small amounts of information held in the directory. The protocol avoids the overhead of establishing (and closing) a connection and the session bind and unbind operations needed in connection-oriented directory access protocols. The CLDAP was designed to complement version 2 of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAPv2) [RFC1777], now Historic [HISTORIC].
无连接轻型目录访问协议（CLDAP）[RFC1798]于1995年作为提议的标准发布。该协议针对需要查找目录中少量信息的应用程序。该协议避免了建立（和关闭）连接以及面向连接的目录访问协议中所需的会话绑定和解除绑定操作的开销。CLDAP的设计是为了补充轻型目录访问协议（LDAPv2）[RFC1777]的第2版，现在已经成为历史[Historical]。
In the seven years since its publication, CLDAP has not become widely deployed on the Internet. There are a number of probable reasons for this:
CLDAP自发布以来的七年中，尚未在互联网上广泛部署。原因可能有很多：
- Limited functionality: + anonymous only, + read only, + small result sizes only, and
- 功能有限：+仅匿名、+只读、+仅结果大小较小，以及
- Insufficient security capabilities: + no integrity protection, + no confidentiality protection - Inadequate internationalization support; - Insufficient extensibility; and - Lack of multiple independently developed implementations.
- 安全功能不足：+没有完整性保护，+没有机密性保护-国际化支持不足；-可扩展性不足；和-缺少多个独立开发的实现。
The CLDAP technical specification has normative references to multiple obsolete technical specifications including X.501(88), X.511(88), RFC 1487 (the predecessor to RFC 1777, the now Historic LDAPv2 technical specification). Unless the technical specification were to be updated, CLDAP cannot remain on the standards track because of the Normative reference to a Historic RFC.
CLDAP技术规范引用了多个过时的技术规范，包括X.501（88）、X.511（88）、RFC 1487（RFC 1777的前身，现在历史悠久的LDAPv2技术规范）。除非更新技术规范，否则CLDAP不能保持在标准轨道上，因为对历史RFC的规范性引用。
The community recognized in the mid-1990s that CLDAP needed to be updated. In response to this, the IETF chartered the LDAP Extensions Working Group (LDAPext WG) in 1997 to undertake this update. The LDAPext WG is concluding without producing an update to CLDAP. Currently, there is no standardization effort to update CLDAP.
20世纪90年代中期，社区认识到CLDAP需要更新。对此，IETF于1997年授权LDAP扩展工作组（LDAPext WG）进行此更新。LDAPext工作组即将结束，但未对CLDAP进行更新。目前，没有更新CLDAP的标准化工作。
It should be noted that the community still has interest in developing a "connection-less" directory access protocol. However, based on operational experience, has determined that further experimentation is necessary to address outstanding technical issues. In particular, security considerations associated with "connection-less" services need to be addressed.
应该注意的是，社区仍然对开发“无连接”目录访问协议感兴趣。然而，根据运行经验，已确定有必要进行进一步试验，以解决悬而未决的技术问题。特别是，需要解决与“无连接”服务相关的安全问题。
As there is no viable standardization effort to update CLDAP as necessary to keep it on the standards track and the community currently considers this an area requiring further experimentation, RFC 1798 must be moved to Historic status.
由于没有可行的标准化工作来更新CLDAP，使其保持在标准轨道上，并且社区目前认为这是一个需要进一步试验的领域，因此必须将RFC 1798移至历史地位。
It is recommended that those interested in connection-less access to X.500-based directory services experiment with [LDAPUDP] and other alternatives which might become available.
建议那些对基于X.500的目录服务的无连接访问感兴趣的人尝试使用[LDAPUDP]和其他可能可用的替代方法。
The security of the Internet will not be impacted by the retirement of CLDAP.
CLDAP的退役不会影响互联网的安全。
The author would like to thank the designers of CLDAP for their contribution to the Internet community.
作者要感谢CLDAP的设计师们对互联网社区的贡献。
[HISTORIC] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol version 2 (LDAPv2) to Historic Status", RFC 3494, February 2003.
[历史]Zeilenga，K.，“轻型目录访问协议版本2（LDAPv2）到历史状态”，RFC 34942003年2月。
[CLDAP] Young, A. "Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol," RFC 1798, June 1995.
[CLDAP]Young，A.“无连接轻型目录访问协议”，RFC 17981995年6月。
[LDAPUDP] Johansson, L. and R. Hedberg, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol over UDP/IP," Work in Progress.
[LDAPUDP]Johansson，L.和R.Hedberg，“UDP/IP上的轻量级目录访问协议”，正在进行中。
[RFC1777] Yeong, W., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995.
[RFC1777]Yeong，W.，Howes，T.和S.Kille，“轻量级目录访问协议”，RFC 17771995年3月。
[RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002.
[RFC3377]Hodges，J.和R.Morgan，“轻量级目录访问协议（v3）：技术规范”，RFC 3377，2002年9月。
[X501] The Directory: Models. CCITT Recommendation X.501 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21; International Standard 9594-2, 1988.
[X501]目录：模型。CCITT建议X.501 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21；国际标准9594-21988。
[X511] The Directory: Abstract Service Definition. CCITT Recommendation X.511, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21; International Standard 9594-3, 1988.
[X511]目录：抽象服务定义。CCITT建议X.511，ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21；国际标准9594-31988。
Kurt D. Zeilenga OpenLDAP Foundation
库尔特D.Zeeliga OpenLDAP基金会
EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2003年）。版权所有。
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.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
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.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。