diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'crypto/heimdal/doc/standardisation/rfc1831.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | crypto/heimdal/doc/standardisation/rfc1831.txt | 1011 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1011 deletions
diff --git a/crypto/heimdal/doc/standardisation/rfc1831.txt b/crypto/heimdal/doc/standardisation/rfc1831.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0556c9e83f3b6..0000000000000 --- a/crypto/heimdal/doc/standardisation/rfc1831.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1011 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -Network Working Group R. Srinivasan -Request for Comments: 1831 Sun Microsystems -Category: Standards Track August 1995 - - - RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2 - -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. - -ABSTRACT - - This document describes the ONC Remote Procedure Call (ONC RPC - Version 2) protocol as it is currently deployed and accepted. "ONC" - stands for "Open Network Computing". - -TABLE OF CONTENTS - - 1. INTRODUCTION 2 - 2. TERMINOLOGY 2 - 3. THE RPC MODEL 2 - 4. TRANSPORTS AND SEMANTICS 4 - 5. BINDING AND RENDEZVOUS INDEPENDENCE 5 - 6. AUTHENTICATION 5 - 7. RPC PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS 5 - 7.1 RPC Programs and Procedures 6 - 7.2 Authentication 7 - 7.3 Program Number Assignment 8 - 7.4 Other Uses of the RPC Protocol 8 - 7.4.1 Batching 8 - 7.4.2 Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls 8 - 8. THE RPC MESSAGE PROTOCOL 9 - 9. AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOLS 12 - 9.1 Null Authentication 13 - 10. RECORD MARKING STANDARD 13 - 11. THE RPC LANGUAGE 13 - 11.1 An Example Service Described in the RPC Language 13 - 11.2 The RPC Language Specification 14 - 11.3 Syntax Notes 15 - APPENDIX A: SYSTEM AUTHENTICATION 16 - REFERENCES 17 - Security Considerations 18 - Author's Address 18 - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 1] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - -1. INTRODUCTION - - This document specifies version two of the message protocol used in - ONC Remote Procedure Call (RPC). The message protocol is specified - with the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [9]. This - document assumes that the reader is familiar with XDR. It does not - attempt to justify remote procedure calls systems or describe their - use. The paper by Birrell and Nelson [1] is recommended as an - excellent background for the remote procedure call concept. - -2. TERMINOLOGY - - This document discusses clients, calls, servers, replies, services, - programs, procedures, and versions. Each remote procedure call has - two sides: an active client side that makes the call to a server, - which sends back a reply. A network service is a collection of one - or more remote programs. A remote program implements one or more - remote procedures; the procedures, their parameters, and results are - documented in the specific program's protocol specification. A - server may support more than one version of a remote program in order - to be compatible with changing protocols. - - For example, a network file service may be composed of two programs. - One program may deal with high-level applications such as file system - access control and locking. The other may deal with low-level file - input and output and have procedures like "read" and "write". A - client of the network file service would call the procedures - associated with the two programs of the service on behalf of the - client. - - The terms client and server only apply to a particular transaction; a - particular hardware entity (host) or software entity (process or - program) could operate in both roles at different times. For - example, a program that supplies remote execution service could also - be a client of a network file service. - -3. THE RPC MODEL - - The ONC RPC protocol is based on the remote procedure call model, - which is similar to the local procedure call model. In the local - case, the caller places arguments to a procedure in some well- - specified location (such as a register window). It then transfers - control to the procedure, and eventually regains control. At that - point, the results of the procedure are extracted from the well- - specified location, and the caller continues execution. - - - - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 2] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - The remote procedure call model is similar. One thread of control - logically winds through two processes: the caller's process, and a - server's process. The caller process first sends a call message to - the server process and waits (blocks) for a reply message. The call - message includes the procedure's parameters, and the reply message - includes the procedure's results. Once the reply message is - received, the results of the procedure are extracted, and caller's - execution is resumed. - - On the server side, a process is dormant awaiting the arrival of a - call message. When one arrives, the server process extracts the - procedure's parameters, computes the results, sends a reply message, - and then awaits the next call message. - - In this model, only one of the two processes is active at any given - time. However, this model is only given as an example. The ONC RPC - protocol makes no restrictions on the concurrency model implemented, - and others are possible. For example, an implementation may choose - to have RPC calls be asynchronous, so that the client may do useful - work while waiting for the reply from the server. Another - possibility is to have the server create a separate task to process - an incoming call, so that the original server can be free to receive - other requests. - - There are a few important ways in which remote procedure calls differ - from local procedure calls: - - 1. Error handling: failures of the remote server or network must - be handled when using remote procedure calls. - - 2. Global variables and side-effects: since the server does not - have access to the client's address space, hidden arguments cannot - be passed as global variables or returned as side effects. - - 3. Performance: remote procedures usually operate one or more - orders of magnitude slower than local procedure calls. - - 4. Authentication: since remote procedure calls can be transported - over unsecured networks, authentication may be necessary. - Authentication prevents one entity from masquerading as some other - entity. - - The conclusion is that even though there are tools to automatically - generate client and server libraries for a given service, protocols - must still be designed carefully. - - - - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 3] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - -4. TRANSPORTS AND SEMANTICS - - The RPC protocol can be implemented on several different transport - protocols. The RPC protocol does not care how a message is passed - from one process to another, but only with specification and - interpretation of messages. However, the application may wish to - obtain information about (and perhaps control over) the transport - layer through an interface not specified in this document. For - example, the transport protocol may impose a restriction on the - maximum size of RPC messages, or it may be stream-oriented like TCP - with no size limit. The client and server must agree on their - transport protocol choices. - - It is important to point out that RPC does not try to implement any - kind of reliability and that the application may need to be aware of - the type of transport protocol underneath RPC. If it knows it is - running on top of a reliable transport such as TCP [6], then most of - the work is already done for it. On the other hand, if it is running - on top of an unreliable transport such as UDP [7], it must implement - its own time-out, retransmission, and duplicate detection policies as - the RPC protocol does not provide these services. - - Because of transport independence, the RPC protocol does not attach - specific semantics to the remote procedures or their execution - requirements. Semantics can be inferred from (but should be - explicitly specified by) the underlying transport protocol. For - example, consider RPC running on top of an unreliable transport such - as UDP. If an application retransmits RPC call messages after time- - outs, and does not receive a reply, it cannot infer anything about - the number of times the procedure was executed. If it does receive a - reply, then it can infer that the procedure was executed at least - once. - - A server may wish to remember previously granted requests from a - client and not regrant them in order to insure some degree of - execute-at-most-once semantics. A server can do this by taking - advantage of the transaction ID that is packaged with every RPC - message. The main use of this transaction ID is by the client RPC - entity in matching replies to calls. However, a client application - may choose to reuse its previous transaction ID when retransmitting a - call. The server may choose to remember this ID after executing a - call and not execute calls with the same ID in order to achieve some - degree of execute-at-most-once semantics. The server is not allowed - to examine this ID in any other way except as a test for equality. - - On the other hand, if using a "reliable" transport such as TCP, the - application can infer from a reply message that the procedure was - executed exactly once, but if it receives no reply message, it cannot - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 4] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - assume that the remote procedure was not executed. Note that even if - a connection-oriented protocol like TCP is used, an application still - needs time-outs and reconnection to handle server crashes. - - There are other possibilities for transports besides datagram- or - connection-oriented protocols. For example, a request-reply protocol - such as VMTP [2] is perhaps a natural transport for RPC. ONC RPC - uses both TCP and UDP transport protocols. Section 10 (RECORD - MARKING STANDARD) describes the mechanism employed by ONC RPC to - utilize a connection-oriented, stream-oriented transport such as TCP. - -5. BINDING AND RENDEZVOUS INDEPENDENCE - - The act of binding a particular client to a particular service and - transport parameters is NOT part of this RPC protocol specification. - This important and necessary function is left up to some higher-level - software. - - Implementors could think of the RPC protocol as the jump-subroutine - instruction ("JSR") of a network; the loader (binder) makes JSR - useful, and the loader itself uses JSR to accomplish its task. - Likewise, the binding software makes RPC useful, possibly using RPC - to accomplish this task. - -6. AUTHENTICATION - - The RPC protocol provides the fields necessary for a client to - identify itself to a service, and vice-versa, in each call and reply - message. Security and access control mechanisms can be built on top - of this message authentication. Several different authentication - protocols can be supported. A field in the RPC header indicates - which protocol is being used. More information on specific - authentication protocols is in section 9: "Authentication Protocols". - -7. RPC PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS - - The RPC protocol must provide for the following: - - (1) Unique specification of a procedure to be called. - (2) Provisions for matching response messages to request messages. - (3) Provisions for authenticating the caller to service and - vice-versa. - - - - - - - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 5] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - Besides these requirements, features that detect the following are - worth supporting because of protocol roll-over errors, implementation - bugs, user error, and network administration: - - (1) RPC protocol mismatches. - (2) Remote program protocol version mismatches. - (3) Protocol errors (such as misspecification of a procedure's - parameters). - (4) Reasons why remote authentication failed. - (5) Any other reasons why the desired procedure was not called. - -7.1 RPC Programs and Procedures - - The RPC call message has three unsigned integer fields -- remote - program number, remote program version number, and remote procedure - number -- which uniquely identify the procedure to be called. - Program numbers are administered by a central authority - (rpc@sun.com). Once implementors have a program number, they can - implement their remote program; the first implementation would most - likely have the version number 1. Because most new protocols evolve, - a version field of the call message identifies which version of the - protocol the caller is using. Version numbers enable support of both - old and new protocols through the same server process. - - The procedure number identifies the procedure to be called. These - numbers are documented in the specific program's protocol - specification. For example, a file service's protocol specification - may state that its procedure number 5 is "read" and procedure number - 12 is "write". - - Just as remote program protocols may change over several versions, - the actual RPC message protocol could also change. Therefore, the - call message also has in it the RPC version number, which is always - equal to two for the version of RPC described here. - - The reply message to a request message has enough information to - distinguish the following error conditions: - - (1) The remote implementation of RPC does not support protocol - version 2. The lowest and highest supported RPC version numbers - are returned. - - (2) The remote program is not available on the remote system. - - (3) The remote program does not support the requested version - number. The lowest and highest supported remote program version - numbers are returned. - - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 6] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - (4) The requested procedure number does not exist. (This is - usually a client side protocol or programming error.) - - (5) The parameters to the remote procedure appear to be garbage - from the server's point of view. (Again, this is usually caused - by a disagreement about the protocol between client and service.) - -7.2 Authentication - - Provisions for authentication of caller to service and vice-versa are - provided as a part of the RPC protocol. The call message has two - authentication fields, the credential and verifier. The reply - message has one authentication field, the response verifier. The RPC - protocol specification defines all three fields to be the following - opaque type (in the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) language [9]): - - enum auth_flavor { - AUTH_NONE = 0, - AUTH_SYS = 1, - AUTH_SHORT = 2 - /* and more to be defined */ - }; - - struct opaque_auth { - auth_flavor flavor; - opaque body<400>; - }; - - In other words, any "opaque_auth" structure is an "auth_flavor" - enumeration followed by up to 400 bytes which are opaque to - (uninterpreted by) the RPC protocol implementation. - - The interpretation and semantics of the data contained within the - authentication fields is specified by individual, independent - authentication protocol specifications. (Section 9 defines the - various authentication protocols.) - - If authentication parameters were rejected, the reply message - contains information stating why they were rejected. - - - - - - - - - - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 7] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - -7.3 Program Number Assignment - - Program numbers are given out in groups of hexadecimal 20000000 - (decimal 536870912) according to the following chart: - - 0 - 1fffffff defined by rpc@sun.com - 20000000 - 3fffffff defined by user - 40000000 - 5fffffff transient - 60000000 - 7fffffff reserved - 80000000 - 9fffffff reserved - a0000000 - bfffffff reserved - c0000000 - dfffffff reserved - e0000000 - ffffffff reserved - - The first group is a range of numbers administered by rpc@sun.com and - should be identical for all sites. The second range is for - applications peculiar to a particular site. This range is intended - primarily for debugging new programs. When a site develops an - application that might be of general interest, that application - should be given an assigned number in the first range. Application - developers may apply for blocks of RPC program numbers in the first - range by sending electronic mail to "rpc@sun.com". The third group - is for applications that generate program numbers dynamically. The - final groups are reserved for future use, and should not be used. - -7.4 Other Uses of the RPC Protocol - - The intended use of this protocol is for calling remote procedures. - Normally, each call message is matched with a reply message. - However, the protocol itself is a message-passing protocol with which - other (non-procedure call) protocols can be implemented. - -7.4.1 Batching - - Batching is useful when a client wishes to send an arbitrarily large - sequence of call messages to a server. Batching typically uses - reliable byte stream protocols (like TCP) for its transport. In the - case of batching, the client never waits for a reply from the server, - and the server does not send replies to batch calls. A sequence of - batch calls is usually terminated by a legitimate remote procedure - call operation in order to flush the pipeline and get positive - acknowledgement. - -7.4.2 Broadcast Remote Procedure Calls - - In broadcast protocols, the client sends a broadcast call to the - network and waits for numerous replies. This requires the use of - packet-based protocols (like UDP) as its transport protocol. Servers - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 8] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - that support broadcast protocols usually respond only when the call - is successfully processed and are silent in the face of errors, but - this varies with the application. - - The principles of broadcast RPC also apply to multicasting - an RPC - request can be sent to a multicast address. - -8. THE RPC MESSAGE PROTOCOL - - This section defines the RPC message protocol in the XDR data - description language [9]. - - enum msg_type { - CALL = 0, - REPLY = 1 - }; - - A reply to a call message can take on two forms: The message was - either accepted or rejected. - - enum reply_stat { - MSG_ACCEPTED = 0, - MSG_DENIED = 1 - }; - - Given that a call message was accepted, the following is the status - of an attempt to call a remote procedure. - - enum accept_stat { - SUCCESS = 0, /* RPC executed successfully */ - PROG_UNAVAIL = 1, /* remote hasn't exported program */ - PROG_MISMATCH = 2, /* remote can't support version # */ - PROC_UNAVAIL = 3, /* program can't support procedure */ - GARBAGE_ARGS = 4, /* procedure can't decode params */ - SYSTEM_ERR = 5 /* errors like memory allocation failure */ - }; - - Reasons why a call message was rejected: - - enum reject_stat { - RPC_MISMATCH = 0, /* RPC version number != 2 */ - AUTH_ERROR = 1 /* remote can't authenticate caller */ - }; - - Why authentication failed: - - enum auth_stat { - AUTH_OK = 0, /* success */ - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 9] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - /* - * failed at remote end - */ - AUTH_BADCRED = 1, /* bad credential (seal broken) */ - AUTH_REJECTEDCRED = 2, /* client must begin new session */ - AUTH_BADVERF = 3, /* bad verifier (seal broken) */ - AUTH_REJECTEDVERF = 4, /* verifier expired or replayed */ - AUTH_TOOWEAK = 5, /* rejected for security reasons */ - /* - * failed locally - */ - AUTH_INVALIDRESP = 6, /* bogus response verifier */ - AUTH_FAILED = 7 /* reason unknown */ - }; - - The RPC message: - - All messages start with a transaction identifier, xid, followed by a - two-armed discriminated union. The union's discriminant is a - msg_type which switches to one of the two types of the message. The - xid of a REPLY message always matches that of the initiating CALL - message. NB: The xid field is only used for clients matching reply - messages with call messages or for servers detecting retransmissions; - the service side cannot treat this id as any type of sequence number. - - struct rpc_msg { - unsigned int xid; - union switch (msg_type mtype) { - case CALL: - call_body cbody; - case REPLY: - reply_body rbody; - } body; - }; - - Body of an RPC call: - - In version 2 of the RPC protocol specification, rpcvers must be equal - to 2. The fields prog, vers, and proc specify the remote program, - its version number, and the procedure within the remote program to be - called. After these fields are two authentication parameters: cred - (authentication credential) and verf (authentication verifier). The - two authentication parameters are followed by the parameters to the - remote procedure, which are specified by the specific program - protocol. - - The purpose of the authentication verifier is to validate the - authentication credential. Note that these two items are - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 10] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - historically separate, but are always used together as one logical - entity. - - struct call_body { - unsigned int rpcvers; /* must be equal to two (2) */ - unsigned int prog; - unsigned int vers; - unsigned int proc; - opaque_auth cred; - opaque_auth verf; - /* procedure specific parameters start here */ - }; - - Body of a reply to an RPC call: - - union reply_body switch (reply_stat stat) { - case MSG_ACCEPTED: - accepted_reply areply; - case MSG_DENIED: - rejected_reply rreply; - } reply; - - Reply to an RPC call that was accepted by the server: - - There could be an error even though the call was accepted. The first - field is an authentication verifier that the server generates in - order to validate itself to the client. It is followed by a union - whose discriminant is an enum accept_stat. The SUCCESS arm of the - union is protocol specific. The PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL, - GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR arms of the union are void. The - PROG_MISMATCH arm specifies the lowest and highest version numbers of - the remote program supported by the server. - - struct accepted_reply { - opaque_auth verf; - union switch (accept_stat stat) { - case SUCCESS: - opaque results[0]; - /* - * procedure-specific results start here - */ - case PROG_MISMATCH: - struct { - unsigned int low; - unsigned int high; - } mismatch_info; - default: - /* - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 11] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - * Void. Cases include PROG_UNAVAIL, PROC_UNAVAIL, - * GARBAGE_ARGS, and SYSTEM_ERR. - */ - void; - } reply_data; - }; - - Reply to an RPC call that was rejected by the server: - - The call can be rejected for two reasons: either the server is not - running a compatible version of the RPC protocol (RPC_MISMATCH), or - the server rejects the identity of the caller (AUTH_ERROR). In case - of an RPC version mismatch, the server returns the lowest and highest - supported RPC version numbers. In case of invalid authentication, - failure status is returned. - - union rejected_reply switch (reject_stat stat) { - case RPC_MISMATCH: - struct { - unsigned int low; - unsigned int high; - } mismatch_info; - case AUTH_ERROR: - auth_stat stat; - }; - -9. AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOLS - - As previously stated, authentication parameters are opaque, but - open-ended to the rest of the RPC protocol. This section defines two - standard "flavors" of authentication. Implementors are free to - invent new authentication types, with the same rules of flavor number - assignment as there is for program number assignment. The "flavor" - of a credential or verifier refers to the value of the "flavor" field - in the opaque_auth structure. Flavor numbers, like RPC program - numbers, are also administered centrally, and developers may assign - new flavor numbers by applying through electronic mail to - "rpc@sun.com". Credentials and verifiers are represented as variable - length opaque data (the "body" field in the opaque_auth structure). - - In this document, two flavors of authentication are described. Of - these, Null authentication (described in the next subsection) is - mandatory - it must be available in all implementations. System - authentication is described in Appendix A. It is strongly - recommended that implementors include System authentication in their - implementations. Many applications use this style of authentication, - and availability of this flavor in an implementation will enhance - interoperability. - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 12] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - -9.1 Null Authentication - - Often calls must be made where the client does not care about its - identity or the server does not care who the client is. In this - case, the flavor of the RPC message's credential, verifier, and reply - verifier is "AUTH_NONE". Opaque data associated with "AUTH_NONE" is - undefined. It is recommended that the length of the opaque data be - zero. - -10. RECORD MARKING STANDARD - - When RPC messages are passed on top of a byte stream transport - protocol (like TCP), it is necessary to delimit one message from - another in order to detect and possibly recover from protocol errors. - This is called record marking (RM). One RPC message fits into one RM - record. - - A record is composed of one or more record fragments. A record - fragment is a four-byte header followed by 0 to (2**31) - 1 bytes of - fragment data. The bytes encode an unsigned binary number; as with - XDR integers, the byte order is from highest to lowest. The number - encodes two values -- a boolean which indicates whether the fragment - is the last fragment of the record (bit value 1 implies the fragment - is the last fragment) and a 31-bit unsigned binary value which is the - length in bytes of the fragment's data. The boolean value is the - highest-order bit of the header; the length is the 31 low-order bits. - (Note that this record specification is NOT in XDR standard form!) - -11. THE RPC LANGUAGE - - Just as there was a need to describe the XDR data-types in a formal - language, there is also need to describe the procedures that operate - on these XDR data-types in a formal language as well. The RPC - Language is an extension to the XDR language, with the addition of - "program", "procedure", and "version" declarations. The following - example is used to describe the essence of the language. - -11.1 An Example Service Described in the RPC Language - - Here is an example of the specification of a simple ping program. - - program PING_PROG { - /* - * Latest and greatest version - */ - version PING_VERS_PINGBACK { - void - PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0; - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 13] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - /* - * Ping the client, return the round-trip time - * (in microseconds). Returns -1 if the operation - * timed out. - */ - int - PINGPROC_PINGBACK(void) = 1; - } = 2; - - /* - * Original version - */ - version PING_VERS_ORIG { - void - PINGPROC_NULL(void) = 0; - } = 1; - } = 1; - - const PING_VERS = 2; /* latest version */ - - The first version described is PING_VERS_PINGBACK with two - procedures, PINGPROC_NULL and PINGPROC_PINGBACK. PINGPROC_NULL takes - no arguments and returns no results, but it is useful for computing - round-trip times from the client to the server and back again. By - convention, procedure 0 of any RPC protocol should have the same - semantics, and never require any kind of authentication. The second - procedure is used for the client to have the server do a reverse ping - operation back to the client, and it returns the amount of time (in - microseconds) that the operation used. The next version, - PING_VERS_ORIG, is the original version of the protocol and it does - not contain PINGPROC_PINGBACK procedure. It is useful for - compatibility with old client programs, and as this program matures - it may be dropped from the protocol entirely. - -11.2 The RPC Language Specification - - The RPC language is identical to the XDR language defined in RFC - 1014, except for the added definition of a "program-def" described - below. - - program-def: - "program" identifier "{" - version-def - version-def * - "}" "=" constant ";" - - version-def: - "version" identifier "{" - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 14] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - - procedure-def - procedure-def * - "}" "=" constant ";" - - procedure-def: - type-specifier identifier "(" type-specifier - ("," type-specifier )* ")" "=" constant ";" - -11.3 Syntax Notes - - (1) The following keywords are added and cannot be used as - identifiers: "program" and "version"; - - (2) A version name cannot occur more than once within the scope of a - program definition. Nor can a version number occur more than once - within the scope of a program definition. - - (3) A procedure name cannot occur more than once within the scope of - a version definition. Nor can a procedure number occur more than once - within the scope of version definition. - - (4) Program identifiers are in the same name space as constant and - type identifiers. - - (5) Only unsigned constants can be assigned to programs, versions and - procedures. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 15] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - -APPENDIX A: SYSTEM AUTHENTICATION - - The client may wish to identify itself, for example, as it is - identified on a UNIX(tm) system. The flavor of the client credential - is "AUTH_SYS". The opaque data constituting the credential encodes - the following structure: - - struct authsys_parms { - unsigned int stamp; - string machinename<255>; - unsigned int uid; - unsigned int gid; - unsigned int gids<16>; - }; - - The "stamp" is an arbitrary ID which the caller machine may generate. - The "machinename" is the name of the caller's machine (like - "krypton"). The "uid" is the caller's effective user ID. The "gid" - is the caller's effective group ID. The "gids" is a counted array of - groups which contain the caller as a member. The verifier - accompanying the credential should have "AUTH_NONE" flavor value - (defined above). Note this credential is only unique within a - particular domain of machine names, uids, and gids. - - The flavor value of the verifier received in the reply message from - the server may be "AUTH_NONE" or "AUTH_SHORT". In the case of - "AUTH_SHORT", the bytes of the reply verifier's string encode an - opaque structure. This new opaque structure may now be passed to the - server instead of the original "AUTH_SYS" flavor credential. The - server may keep a cache which maps shorthand opaque structures - (passed back by way of an "AUTH_SHORT" style reply verifier) to the - original credentials of the caller. The caller can save network - bandwidth and server cpu cycles by using the shorthand credential. - - The server may flush the shorthand opaque structure at any time. If - this happens, the remote procedure call message will be rejected due - to an authentication error. The reason for the failure will be - "AUTH_REJECTEDCRED". At this point, the client may wish to try the - original "AUTH_SYS" style of credential. - - It should be noted that use of this flavor of authentication does not - guarantee any security for the users or providers of a service, in - itself. The authentication provided by this scheme can be considered - legitimate only when applications using this scheme and the network - can be secured externally, and privileged transport addresses are - used for the communicating end-points (an example of this is the use - of privileged TCP/UDP ports in Unix systems - note that not all - systems enforce privileged transport address mechanisms). - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 16] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - -REFERENCES - - [1] Birrell, A. D. & Nelson, B. J., "Implementing Remote Procedure - Calls", XEROX CSL-83-7, October 1983. - - [2] Cheriton, D., "VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol", - Preliminary Version 0.3, Stanford University, January 1987. - - [3] Diffie & Hellman, "New Directions in Cryptography", IEEE - Transactions on Information Theory IT-22, November 1976. - - [4] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol", RFC 1305, UDEL, - March 1992. - - [5] National Bureau of Standards, "Data Encryption Standard", - Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 46, January - 1977. - - [6] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol - DARPA Internet - Program Protocol Specification", STD 7, RFC 793, USC/Information - Sciences Institute, September 1981. - - [7] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, - USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1980. - - [8] Reynolds, J., and Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, - RFC 1700, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994. - - [9] Srinivasan, R., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", - RFC 1832, Sun Microsystems, Inc., August 1995. - - [10] Miller, S., Neuman, C., Schiller, J., and J. Saltzer, "Section - E.2.1: Kerberos Authentication and Authorization System", - M.I.T. Project Athena, Cambridge, Massachusetts, December 21, - 1987. - - [11] Steiner, J., Neuman, C., and J. Schiller, "Kerberos: An - Authentication Service for Open Network Systems", pp. 191-202 in - Usenix Conference Proceedings, Dallas, Texas, February 1988. - - [12] Kohl, J. and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network Authentication - Service (V5)", RFC 1510, Digital Equipment Corporation, - USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1993. - - - - - - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 17] - -RFC 1831 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 August 1995 - - -Security Considerations - - Security issues are not discussed in this memo. - -Author's Address - - Raj Srinivasan - Sun Microsystems, Inc. - ONC Technologies - 2550 Garcia Avenue - M/S MTV-5-40 - Mountain View, CA 94043 - USA - - Phone: 415-336-2478 - Fax: 415-336-6015 - EMail: raj@eng.sun.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Srinivasan Standards Track [Page 18] - |