





INTERNET-DRAFT                           Editor: Kurt D. Zeilenga
Intended Category: Standard Track             OpenLDAP Foundation
Expires: 13 May 2002                             13 November 2001
Obsoletes: RFC 2596


                     Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP
                    draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt


Status of Memo

  This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
  provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

  This document is intended to be, after appropriate review and
  revision, submitted to the RFC Editor as a Standard Track document.
  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.  Technical discussion of this
  document will take place on the IETF LDAP Extensions Working Group
  (LDAPext) mailing list <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>.  Please send
  editorial comments directly to the document editor
  <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>.

  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>.

  Copyright 2001, The Internet Society.  All Rights Reserved.

  Please see the Copyright section near the end of this document for
  more information.

Abstract

  This document details the use of Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP.
  This document replaces RFC 2596.






Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


Conventions

  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].


1. Background and Intended Use

  The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [LDAPTS] provides a
  means for clients to interrogate and modify information stored in a
  distributed directory system.  The information in the directory is
  maintained as attributes of entries.  Most of these attributes have
  syntaxes which are human-readable strings, and it is desirable to be
  able to indicate the natural language associated with attribute
  values.

  This document describes how language tags and ranges [RFC3066] are
  carried in LDAP and are to be interpreted by LDAP implementations.
  All implementations MUST be prepared to accept language tags and
  ranges in the LDAP protocol.

  This document replaces RFC 2596.  Appendix A summaries changes made
  since RFC 2596.

  The remainder of this section provides a summary of Langauge Tags,
  Language Ranges, and Attribute Descriptions.


1.1. Language Tags

  Section 2 of BCP 47 [RFC3066] describes the language tag format which
  is used in LDAP.  Briefly, it is a string of ASCII alphabetic
  characters and hyphens.  Examples include "fr", "en-US" and "ja-JP".
  Language tags are case insensitive.  For example, the language tag
  "en-us" is the same as "EN-US".

  Section 2 of this document details use of language tags in LDAP.


1.2. Language Ranges

  Section 2.5 of BCP 47 [RFC3066] describes the language ranges.
  Language ranges are used to specify sets of language tags.

  A language range matches a language tag if it exactly equals the tag,
  or if it exactly equals a prefix of the tag such that the first
  character following the prefix is "-".  The special tag "*" matches



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


  all tags.

  Due to restrictions upon option naming in LDAP, this document uses a
  different language range syntax.  However, the semantics of language
  ranges in LDAP is consistent with BCP 47.

  Section 3 of this document details use of language ranges in LDAP.


1.3. Attribute Descriptions

  An attribute consists of a type, a list of "subtyping" (or "tag")
  options for that type, and a set of one or more values.  The type and
  the options are combined into the AttributeDescription, defined in
  section 4.1.5 of RFC 2251 [RFC2251].  AttributeDescription may also
  contain options which are not part of the attribute, but indicate some
  function such as the transfer encoding.

  In summary, an attribute with "subtyping" (or "tag") options is
  treated as a subtype of the attribute without the options.  If a
  server does not support any of the options, the attribute is treated
  as an unrecognized attribute.

  As language tags are intended to stored with the attribute, they are
  to treated as "subtyping" (or "tag") options.  Language range are used
  only to match against language ranges and are not stored with the
  attribute, they are not treated "subtyping" (or "tag") options but as
  detailed in Section 3 of this document.


2. Use of Language Tags in LDAP

  This section describes how LDAP implementations MUST interpret
  language tags in performing operations.

  Servers which support storing attributes with language tag in the DIT
  SHOULD allow any attribute type it recognizes that has the Directory
  String syntax to have language tag options associated with it.
  Servers MAY allow language options to be associated with other
  attributes types.

  Clients SHOULD NOT assume servers are capable of storing attributes
  with language tags in the directory.

  Implementations MUST NOT otherwise interpret the structure of the tag
  when comparing two tag, and MUST treat them as simply strings of
  characters.  Implementations MUST allow any arbitrary string which
  conforms to the syntax defined in BCP 47 to be used as a language tag.



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


2.1. Language Tag Options

  A language tag option associates a natural language with values for
  that attribute.  An attribute description may contain multiple
  language tag options.  An entry may contain multiple attributes with
  same attribute type but different language tag (and other) options.

  A language tag option conforms to the following ABNF [RFC2234]:

      language-tag-option = "lang-" Language-Tag

  where the Language-Tag production is as defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066].

  A language tag option is a "subtyping" (or "tag") option [RFC2251bis].
  A language tag option has no effect on the tranfer encoding nor on the
  syntax of the attribute values.

  Examples of valid AttributeDescription:

    givenName;lang-en-US
    CN;lang-ja
    SN;lang-de;lang-gem-PFL
    O;lang-i-klingon;x-foobar
    description;x-foobar
    CN

  Notes: The last two have no language tag options.  The x-foobar option
         is fictious and used for example purposes.


2.2. Search Filter

  If langugage tag options are present in an AttributeDescription in an
  assertion, then for each entry within scope, the values of each
  attribute whose AttributeDescription consists of the same attribute
  type or its subtypes and contains each of the presented (and possibly
  other) options is to be matched.

  Thus for example a filter of an equality match of type
  "name;lang-en-US" and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the
  following directory entry

    dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
    objectclass: top                    DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    objectclass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
    CN;lang-en-US: Billy Ray            MATCHES



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


    CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
    CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      DOES NOT MATCH (differing lang-)
    CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
    name: Billy Ray                     DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
    SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
    SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)

  (Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".)

  Client implementors should however note that providing a language tag
  option in a search filter AttributeDescription will often filter out
  desirable values where the tag does not match exactly.  For example,
  the filter (name;lang-en=Billy Ray) does NOT match the attribute
  "name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray".

  If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
  options in the DIT, then any assertion which includes a language tag
  option will not match as it is an unrecognized attribute type.  No
  error would be returned because of this; a presence filter would
  evaluate to FALSE and all other assertions to Undefined.

  If no options are specified in the assertion, then only the base
  attribute type and the assertion value need match the value in the
  directory.

  Thus for example a filter of an equality match of type "name" and
  assertion value "Billy Ray", against the following directory entry

    dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=net
    objectclass: top                    DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    objectclass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
    CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
    CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      MATCHES
    CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              MATCHES
    name: Billy Ray                     MATCHES
    SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
    SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)


2.3. Requested Attributes in Search

  Clients can provide language tag options in AttributeDescription in
  the requested attribute list in a search request.

  If language tag options are provided in an attribute description, then
  only attributes in a directory entry whose attribute descriptions have



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


  the same attribute type or its subtype and the provided language tags
  options are to be returned.  Thus if a client requests just the
  attribute "name;lang-en", the server would return "name;lang-en" and
  "CN;lang-en;lang-ja" but not "SN" nor "name;lang-fr".

  Clients can provide in the attribute list multiple
  AttributeDescription which have the same base attribute type but
  different options. For example a client could provide both
  "name;lang-en" and "name;lang-fr", and this would permit an attribute
  with either language tag option to be returned.  Note there would be
  no need to provide both "name" and "name;lang-en" since all subtypes
  of name would match "name".

  If a server does not support storing attributes with language tag
  options in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
  include language tag options are to be ignored, just as if they were
  unknown attribute types.

  If a request is made specifying all attributes or an attribute is
  requested without providing a language tag option, then all attribute
  values regardless of their language tag option are returned.

  For example, if the client requests a "description" attribute, and a
  matching entry contains the following attributes:

    objectclass: top
    objectclass: organization
    O: Software GmbH
    description: software
    description;lang-en: software products
    description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte
    postalAddress: Berlin 8001 Germany
    postalAddress;lang-de: Berlin 8001 Deutschland

  The server would return:

    description: software
    description;lang-en: software products
    description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte


2.4. Compare

  Language tag options can be present in an AttributeDescription used in
  a compare request AttributeValueAssertion.  This is to be treated by
  servers the same as the use of language tag options in a search filter
  with an equality match, as described in section 2.2.  If there is no
  attribute in the entry with the same subtype and language tag options,



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


  the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.

  Thus for example a compare request of type "name" and assertion value
  "Johann", against an entry containing the following attributes:

    objectclass: top
    objectclass: person
    givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
    CN: Johann Sibelius
    SN: Sibelius

  would cause the server to return compareTrue.

  However, if the client issued a compare request of type "name;lang-de"
  and assertion value "Johann" against the above entry, the request
  would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.

  If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
  options in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language tag
  option will always fail to locate an attribute, and
  noSuchAttributeType will be returned.


  2.5. Add Operation

  Clients can provide language options in AttributeDescription in
  attributes of a new entry to be created.

  A client can provide multiple attributes with the same attribute type
  and value, so long as each attribute has a different set of language
  tag options.

  For example, the following is a legal request.

    dn: CN=John Smith,DC=example,DC=com
    objectclass: top
    objectclass: person
    objectclass: residentialPerson
    name: John Smith
    CN: John Smith
    CN;lang-en: John Smith
    SN: Smith
    SN;lang-en;lang-en-US: Smith
    streetAddress: 1 University Street
    streetAddress;lang-en: 1 University Street
    streetAddress;lang-fr: 1 rue Universite
    houseIdentifier;lang-fr: 9e etage




Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


  If a server does not support storing language tag options with
  attribute values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an
  AttributeDescription with a language tag option as an unrecognized
  attribute.  If the server forbids the addition of unrecognized
  attributes then it MUST fail the add request with an appropriate
  result code.


2.6. Modify Operation

  A client can provide language tag options in an AttributeDescription
  as part of a modification element in the modify operation.

  Attribute types and language tag options MUST match exactly against
  values stored in the directory.  For example, if the modification is a
  "delete", then if the stored values to be deleted have language tag
  options, then those language tag options MUST be provided in the
  modify operation, and if the stored values to be deleted do not have
  any language tag option, then no language tag option is to be
  provided.

  If the server does not support storing language tag options with
  attribute values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an
  AttributeDescription with a language tag option as an unrecognized
  attribute, and MUST fail the request with an appropriate result code.


3. Use of Language Ranges in LDAP

  Since the publication of RFC 2596, it has become apparent that there
  is a need to provide a mechanism for a client to request attributes
  based upon set of language tag options whose tags all begin with the
  same sequence of subtags.

  AttributeDescriptions containing language range options are intended
  to be used in attribute value assertions, search attribute lists, and
  other places where the client desires to provide an attribute
  description matching of a range of language tags associated with
  attributes.

  A language range option conforms to the following ABNF [RFC 2234]:

      language-range-option = "lang-" [ Language-Tag "-" ]

  where the Language-Tag production is as defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066].

  A language range option matches a langugage tag option if language
  range option less the trailing "-" matches exactly the language tag or



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


  if the language range option (including the trailing "-") matches a
  prefix of the language tag option.  Note that the language range
  option "lang-" matches all language tag options.

  Examples of valid AttributeDescription containing language range
  options:

    givenName;lang-en-
    CN;lang-
    O;lang-x-;x-foobar

  A language range option is not a "subtyping" (or "tag") option
  [RFC2251bis].  Attributes cannot be stored with language range
  options.  Any attempt to add or update an attribute description with a
  languague range option SHALL be treated as an undefined attribute type
  and result in an error.

  A language range option has no effect on the tranfer encoding nor on
  the syntax of the attribute values.

  Servers SHOULD support assertion of language ranges for any attribute
  which they allow to stored with language tags.


3.1. Search Filter

  If a langugage range option is present in an AttributeDescription in
  an assertion, then for each entry within scope, the values of each
  attribute whose AttributeDescription consists of the same attribute
  type or its subtypes and contains a language tag option matching the
  language range option are to be returned.

  Thus for example a filter of an equality match of type "name;lang-en-"
  and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the following directory entry

    dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
    objectclass: top                    DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    objectclass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
    CN;lang-en-US: Billy Ray            MATCHES
    CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
    CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      MATCHES
    CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
    name: Billy Ray                     DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
    SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
    SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)




Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP            [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


  (Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".)

  If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
  options in the DIT, then any assertion which includes a language range
  option will not match as it is an unrecognized attribute type.  No
  error would be returned because of this; a presence filter would
  evaluate to FALSE and all other assertions to Undefined.


3.2. Requested Attributes in Search

  Clients can provide language range options in AttributeDescription in
  the requested attribute list in a search request.

  If a language range option is provided in an attribute description,
  then only attributes in a directory entry whose attribute descriptions
  have the same attribute type or its subtype and a language tag option
  matching the provided language range option are to be returned.  Thus
  if a client requests just the attribute "name;lang-en-", the server
  would return "name;lang-en-US" and "CN;lang-en;lang-ja" but not "SN"
  nor "name;lang-fr".

  Clients can provide in the attribute list multiple
  AttributeDescription which have the same base attribute type but
  different options.  For example a client could provide both
  "name;lang-en-" and "name;lang-fr-", and this would permit an
  attribute whose type was name or subtype of name and with a language
  tag option matching either language range option to be returned.

  If a server does not support storing attributes with language tag
  options in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
  include language range options are to be ignored, just as if they were
  unknown attribute types.


3.3. Compare

  Language range options can be present in an AttributeDescription used
  in a compare request AttributeValueAssertion.  This is to be treated
  by servers the same as the use of language range options in a search
  filter with an equality match, as described in section 3.1.  If there
  is no attribute in the entry with the same subtype and a matching
  language tag option, the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.

  Thus for example a compare request of type "name;lang-" and assertion
  value "Johann", against the entry with the following attributes:

    objectclass: top



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


    objectclass: person
    givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
    CN: Johann Sibelius
    SN: Sibelius

  will cause the server to return compareTrue.  (Note that the language
  range option "lang-" matches any language tag option.)

  However, if the client issued a compare request of type "name;lang-de"
  and assertion value "Sibelius" against the above entry, the request
  would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.

  If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
  options in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language
  range option will always fail to locate an attribute, and
  noSuchAttributeType will be returned.


4. Discovering Language Option Support

  A server SHOULD indicate that it supports storing attributes with
  language tag options in the DIT by publishing OID.TDB as a value of
  the supportedFeatures [FEATURES] attribute in the root DSE.

  A server SHOULD indicate that it supports language range matching of
  attributes with language tag options stored in the DIT by publishing
  OID.TDB as a value of the supportedFeatures [FEATURES] attribute in
  the root DSE.

  A server MAY restrict use of language tag options to a subset of the
  attribute types it recongizes.  This document does not define a
  mechanism for determining which subset of attribute types can be used
  with language tag options.


5. Security Considerations

  There are no known security considerations for this document.  See the
  security considerations sections of [LDAPTS] for security
  considerations of LDAP in general.


6. Acknowledgements

  This document is a revision of RFC 2596 by Mark Wahl and Tim Howes.
  RFC 2596 was a product of the IETF ASID and LDAPEXT working groups.

  This document borrows from a number of IETF documents including BCP



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


  47.


7. References

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

  [RFC2234] D. Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
             Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

  [RFC2251]  Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory
             Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.

  [RFC2251bis]  Sermersheim, J., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
             (v3)", draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-xx.txt (a work in
             progress).

  [RFC3066]  Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages",
             BCP 47 (also RFC 3066), January 2001.

  [LDAPTS]   J. Hodges, R.L. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
             Protocol (v3): Technical Specification",
             draft-ietf-ldapbis-ldapv3-ts-00.txt (a work in progress).

  [FEATURES] K. Zeilenga, "Feature Discovery in LDAP",
             draft-zeilenga-ldap-features-xx.txt (a work in progress).


A. Differences from RFC 2596

  This document adds support for language ranges, provides a mechansism
  that a client can use to discover whether a server supports language
  tags, and clarifies how attributes with multiple language tags are to
  be treated.  This document is a significant rewrite of RFC 2596.


B. Differences from X.500(1997)

  X.500(1997) defines a different mechanism, contexts, as the means of
  representing language tags (codes).  This section summarizes the major
  differences in approach.

  a) An X.500 operation which has specified a language code on a value
     matches a value in the directory without a language code.
  b) LDAP references BCP 47 [RFC3066], which allows for IANA
     registration of new tags as well as unregistered tags.
  c) LDAP supports language ranges.



Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT     draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-00.txt   13 November 2001


  d) LDAP does not allow language tags (and ranges) in distinguished
     names.
  e) X.500 describes subschema administration procedures to allow
     language codes to be associated with particular attributes types.


Copyright 2001, The Internet Society.  All Rights Reserved.

  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.

  The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
  revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

  This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHORS, 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.





















Zeilenga            Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP           [Page 13]

