RFC 1488 PROPOSED STANDARD LDAP · DIRECTORY · ENCODING

LDAP attribute syntaxes: The X.500 String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes

How Directory attribute values are encoded as strings for LDAP protocol use

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
July 1993
AUTHORS
T. Howes, S. Kille, W. Yeong, C. Robbins
STREAM
IETF
OBSOLETED BY
RFC 1778 — LDAP attribute syntaxes
ATTRIBUTE TYPES COVERED
20+ standard syntaxes
SEPARATOR FOR LISTS
Dollar sign ($)
UPDATED BY
RFC 1778
DOI
10.17487/RFC1488

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Network Working Group                                         T. Howes
Request for Comments: 1488                      University of Michigan
                                                              S. Kille
                                                      ISODE Consortium
                                                              W. Yeong
                                     Performance Systems International
                                                            C. Robbins
                                                            NeXor Ltd.
                                                             July 1993


     The X.500 String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes

Status of this Memo

   This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet
   community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
   Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
   Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [9] requires that
   the contents of AttributeValue fields in protocol elements be octet
   strings.  This document defines the requirements that must be
   satisfied by encoding rules used to render Directory attribute
   syntaxes into a form suitable for use in the LDAP, then goes on to
   define the encoding rules for the standard set of attribute syntaxes
   defined in [1,2] and [3].

1.  Attribute Syntax Encoding Requirements

   This section defines general requirements for lightweight directory
   protocol attribute syntax encodings. All documents defining attribute
   syntax encodings for use by the lightweight directory protocols are
   expected to conform to these requirements.

   The encoding rules defined for a given attribute syntax must produce
   octet strings.  To the greatest extent possible, encoded octet
   strings should be usable in their native encoded form for display
   purposes. In particular, encoding rules for attribute syntaxes
   defining non-binary values should produce strings that can be
   displayed with little or no translation by clients implementing the
   lightweight directory protocols.

2.  Standard Attribute Syntax Encodings

   For the purposes of defining the encoding rules for the standard
   attribute syntaxes, the following auxiliary BNF definitions will be
   used:

     <a> ::= 'a' | 'b' | 'c' | 'd' | 'e' | 'f' | 'g' | 'h' | 'i' |
             'j' | 'k' | 'l' | 'm' | 'n' | 'o' | 'p' | 'q' | 'r' |
             's' | 't' | 'u' | 'v' | 'w' | 'x' | 'y' | 'z' | 'A' |
             'B' | 'C' | 'D' | 'E' | 'F' | 'G' | 'H' | 'I' | 'J' |
             'K' | 'L' | 'M' | 'N' | 'O' | 'P' | 'Q' | 'R' | 'S' |
             'T' | 'U' | 'V' | 'W' | 'X' | 'Y' | 'Z'

     <d> ::= '0' | '1' | '2' | '3' | '4' | '5' | '6' | '7' | '8' | '9'

     <hex-digit> ::= <d> | 'a' | 'b' | 'c' | 'd' | 'e' | 'f' |
                      'A' | 'B' | 'C' | 'D' | 'E' | 'F'

     <k> ::= <a> | <d> | '-'

     <p> ::= <a> | <d> | ''' | '(' | ')' | '+' | ',' | '-' | '.' |
             '/' | ':' | '?' | ' '

     <CRLF> ::= The ASCII newline character with hexadecimal value 0x0A

     <letterstring> ::= <a> | <a> <letterstring>

     <numericstring> ::= <d> | <d> <numericstring>

     <keystring> ::= <a> | <a> <anhstring>

     <anhstring> ::= <k> | <k> <anhstring>

     <printablestring> ::= <p> | <p> <printablestring>

     <space> ::= ' ' | ' ' <space>

2.1.  Undefined

   Values of type Undefined are encoded as if they were values of type
   Octet String.

2.2.  Case Ignore String

   A string of type caseIgnoreStringSyntax is encoded as the string
   value itself.

2.3.  Case Exact String

   The encoding of a string of type caseExactStringSyntax is the string
   value itself.

2.4.  Printable String

   The encoding of a string of type printableStringSyntax is the string
   value itself.

2.5.  Numeric String

   The encoding of a string of type numericStringSyntax is the string
   value itself.

2.6.  Octet String

   The encoding of a string of type octetStringSyntax is the string
   value itself.

2.7.  Case Ignore IA5 String

   The encoding of a string of type caseIgnoreIA5String is the string
   value itself.

2.8.  IA5 String

   The encoding of a string of type iA5StringSyntax is the string value
   itself.

2.9.  T61 String

   The encoding of a string of type t61StringSyntax is the string value
   itself.

2.10.  Case Ignore List

   Values of type caseIgnoreListSyntax are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

     <caseignorelist> ::= <caseignorestring> |
                          <caseignorestring> '$' <caseignorelist>

     <caseignorestring> ::= a string encoded according to the rules
                             for Case Ignore String as above.

2.11.  Case Exact List

   Values of type caseExactListSyntax are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

     <caseexactlist> ::= <caseexactstring> |
                          <caseexactstring> '$' <caseexactlist>

     <caseexactstring> ::= a string encoded according to the rules for
                            Case Exact String as above.

2.12.  Distinguished Name

   Values of type distinguishedNameSyntax are encoded to have the
   representation defined in [5].

2.13.  Boolean

   Values of type booleanSyntax are encoded according to the following
   BNF:

     <boolean> ::= "TRUE" | "FALSE"

   Boolean values have an encoding of "TRUE" if they are logically true,
   and have an encoding of "FALSE" otherwise.

2.14.  Integer

   Values of type integerSyntax are encoded as the decimal
   representation of their values, with each decimal digit represented
   by the its character equivalent. So the digit 1 is represented by the
   character

2.15.  Object Identifier

   Values of type objectIdentifierSyntax are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

     <oid> ::= <descr> | <descr> '.' <numericoid> | <numericoid>

     <descr> ::= <keystring>

     <numericoid> ::= <numericstring> | <numericstring> '.' <numericoid>

   In the above BNF, <descr> is the syntactic representation of an
   object descriptor. When encoding values of type
   objectIdentifierSyntax, the first encoding option should be used in
   preference to the second, which should be used in preference to the
   third wherever possible. That is, in encoding object identifiers,
   object descriptors (where assigned and known by the implementation)
   should be used in preference to numeric oids to the greatest extent
   possible. For example, in encoding the object identifier representing
   an organizationName, the descriptor "organizationName" is preferable
   to "ds.4.10", which is in turn preferable to the string "2.5.4.10".

2.16.  Telephone Number

   Values of type telephoneNumberSyntax are encoded as if they were
   Printable String types.

2.17.  Telex Number

   Values of type telexNumberSyntax are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

     <telex-number> ::= <actual-number> '$' <country> '$' <answerback>

     <actual-number> ::= <printablestring>

     <country> ::= <printablestring>

     <answerback> ::= <printablestring>

   In the above, <actual-number> is the syntactic representation of the
   number portion of the TELEX number being encoded, <country> is the
   TELEX country code, and <answerback> is the answerback code of a
   TELEX terminal.

2.18.  Teletex Terminal Identifier

   Values of type teletexTerminalIdentifier are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

     <teletex-id> ::= <printablestring> 0*( '$' <printablestring>)

   In the above, the first <printablestring> is the encoding of the
   first portion of the teletex terminal identifier to be encoded, and
   the subsequent 0 or more <printablestrings> are subsequent portions
   of the teletex terminal identifier.

2.19.  Facsimile Telephone Number

   Values of type FacsimileTelephoneNumber are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

 <fax-number> ::= <printablestring> [ '$' <faxparameters> ]
 <faxparameters> ::= <faxparm> | <faxparm> '$' <faxparameters>

 <faxparm> ::= 'twoDimensional' | 'fineResolution' | 'unlimitedLength' |
               'b4Length' | 'a3Width' | 'b4Width' | 'uncompressed'

   In the above, the first <printablestring> is the actual fax number,
   and the <faxparm> tokens represent fax parameters.

2.20.  Presentation Address

   Values of type PresentationAddress are encoded to have the
   representation described in [6].

2.21.  UTC Time

   Values of type uTCTimeSyntax are encoded as if they were Printable
   Strings with the strings containing a UTCTime value.

2.22.  Guide (search guide)

   Values of type Guide, such as values of the searchGuide attribute,
   are encoded according to the following BNF:

     <guide-value> ::= [ <object-class> '#' ] <criteria>

     <object-class> ::= an encoded value of type objectIdentifierSyntax

     <criteria> ::= <criteria-item> | <criteria-set> | '!' <criteria>

     <criteria-set> ::= [ '(' ] <criteria> '&' <criteria-set> [ ')' ] |
                        [ '(' ] <criteria> '|' <criteria-set> [ ')' ]

     <criteria-item> ::= [ '(' ] <attributetype> '$' <match-type> [ ')' ]

     <match-type> ::= "EQ" | "SUBSTR" | "GE" | "LE" | "APPROX"

2.23.  Postal Address

Values of type PostalAddress are encoded according to the following BNF:

     <postal-address> ::= <t61string> | <t61string> '$' <postal-address>

   In the above, each <t61string> component of a postal address value is
   encoded as a value of type t61StringSyntax.

2.24.  User Password

   Values of type userPasswordSyntax are encoded as if they were of type
   octetStringSyntax.

2.25.  User Certificate

   Values of type userCertificate are encoded according to the following
   BNF:

 <certificate> ::= <signature> '#' <issuer> '#' <validity> '#' <subject>
                   '#' <public-key-info>

 <signature> ::= <algorithm-id>

 <issuer> ::= an encoded Distinguished Name

 <validity> ::= <not-before-time> '#' <not-after-time>

 <not-before-time> ::= <utc-time>

 <not-after-time> ::= <utc-time>

 <algorithm-parameters> ::=  <null> | <integervalue> |
                             '{ASN}' <hex-string>

 <subject> ::= an encoded Distinguished Name

 <public-key-info> ::= <algorithm-id> '#' <encrypted-value>

 <encrypted-value> ::= <hex-string> | <hex-string> '-' <d>

 <algorithm-id> ::= <oid> '#' <algorithm-parameters>

 <utc-time> ::= an encoded UTCTime value

 <hex-string> ::= <hex-digit> | <hex-digit> <hex-string>

2.26.  CA Certificate

   Values of type cACertificate are encoded as if the values were of
   type userCertificate.

2.27.  Authority Revocation List

   Values of type authorityRevocationList are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

     <certificate-list> ::= <signature> '#' <issuer> '#'
                            <utc-time> [ '#' <revoked-certificates> ]

     <revoked-certificates> ::= <algorithm> '#' <encrypted-value>
                                [ '#' 0*(<revoked-certificate>) '#']

     <revoked-certificates> ::= <subject> '#' <algorithm> '#'
                                <serial> '#' <utc-time>

   The syntactic components <algorithm>, <issuer>, <encrypted-value>,
   <utc-time>, <subject> and <serial> have the same definitions as in
   the BNF for the userCertificate attribute syntax.

2.28.  Certificate Revocation List

   Values of type certificateRevocationList are encoded as if the values
   were of type authorityRevocationList.

2.29.  Cross Certificate Pair

   Values of type crossCertificatePair are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

     <certificate-pair> ::= <certificate> '|' <certificate>

   The syntactic component <certificate> has the same definition as in
   the BNF for the userCertificate attribute syntax.

2.30.  Delivery Method

   Values of type deliveryMethod are encoded according to the following
   BNF:

     <delivery-value> ::= <pdm> | <pdm> '$' <delivery-value>

     <pdm> ::= 'any' | 'mhs' | 'physical' | 'telex' | 'teletex' |
               'g3fax' | 'g4fax' | 'ia5' | 'videotex' | 'telephone'

2.31.  Other Mailbox

   Values of the type otherMailboxSyntax are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

     <otherMailbox> ::= <mailbox-type> '$' <mailbox>

     <mailbox-type> ::= an encoded Printable String

     <mailbox> ::= an encoded IA5 String
   In the above, <mailbox-type> represents the type of mail system in
   which the mailbox resides, for example "Internet" or "MCIMail"; and
   <mailbox> is the actual mailbox in the mail system defined by
   <mailbox-type>.

2.32.  Mail Preference

   Values of type mailPreferenceOption are encoded according to the
   following BNF:

 <mail-preference> ::= "NO-LISTS" | "ANY-LIST" | "PROFESSIONAL-LISTS"

2.33.  MHS OR Address

   Values of type MHS OR Address are encoded as strings, according to
   the format defined in [10].

2.34.  Photo

   Values of type Photo are encoded as if they were octet strings
   containing JPEG images in the JPEG File Interchange Format (JFIF), as
   described in [8].

2.35.  Fax

   Values of type Fax are encoded as if they were octet strings
   containing Group 3 Fax images as defined in [7].

3.  Acknowledgements

   Many of the attribute syntax encodings defined in this document are
   adapted from those used in the QUIPU X.500 implementation. The
   contribu- tions of the authors of the QUIPU implementation in the
   specification of the QUIPU syntaxes [4] are gratefully acknowledged.

4.  Bibliography

   [1] The Directory: Selected Attribute Syntaxes.  CCITT,
       Recommendation X.520.

   [2] Information Processing Systems -- Open Systems Interconnection --
       The Directory: Selected Attribute Syntaxes.

   [3] Barker, P., and S. Kille, "The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema",
       RFC 1274, University College London, November 1991.

   [4] The ISO Development Environment: User's Manual -- Volume 5:
       QUIPU.  Colin Robbins, Stephen E. Kille.

   [5] Kille, S., "A String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC
       1485, July 1993.

   [6] Kille, S., "A String Representation for Presentation Addresses",
       RFC 1278, University College London, November 1991.

   [7] Terminal Equipment and Protocols for Telematic Services -
       Standardization of Group 3 facsimile apparatus for document
       transmission.  CCITT, Recommendation T.4.

   [8] JPEG File Interchange Format (Version 1.02).  Eric Hamilton, C-
       Cube Microsystems, Milpitas, CA, September 1, 1992.

   [9] Yeong, W., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
       Protocol", RFC 1487, Performance Systems International,
       University of Michigan, ISODE Consortium, July 1993.

  [10] Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988)/ISO 10021 and RFC 822",
       RFC 1327, University College London, May 1992.

5.  Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

6.  Authors' Addresses

   Tim Howes
   University of Michigan
   ITD Research Systems
   535 W William St.
   Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943
   USA

   Phone: +1 313 747-4454
   EMail: tim@umich.edu


   Steve Kille
   ISODE Consortium
   PO Box 505
   London
   SW11 1DX
   UK

   Phone: +44-71-223-4062
   EMail: S.Kille@isode.com


   Wengyik Yeong
   PSI, Inc.
   510 Huntmar Park Drive
   Herndon, VA 22070
   USA

   Phone: +1 703-450-8001
   EMail: yeongw@psilink.com


   Colin Robbins
   NeXor Ltd
   University Park
   Nottingham
   NG7 2RD
   UK

AI ELI5

On this page
PROBLEMThe Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) requires that all attribute values in directory messages be octet strings, but the X.500 directory defines many different types of values—text, numbers, booleans, addresses, and more—each with its own representation rules.
MECHANISMThe RFC specifies encoding rules that convert each standard attribute syntax type into a string form suitable for transmission and display, ensuring that attributes can be read, compared, and displayed correctly across different implementations.
WHAT WAS UPDATEDDirectory clients and servers could reliably exchange directory data in LDAP format, knowing exactly how to encode and decode every standard attribute type, although this RFC was later updated by RFC 1778.

§1Encoding Directory Attributes for LDAP

The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) is a protocol for accessing directory information—like email addresses, phone numbers, and organization details—stored in an X.500 directory. LDAP messages contain attribute values, but the protocol requires these values to be transmitted as octet strings (bytes). However, the X.500 directory standard defines many different types of attribute values, each with its own structure and rules.

The RFC solves this mismatch by defining how each standard attribute syntax is encoded into a string form. These encoding rules must be reversible (so you can decode the string back to the original value) and should be human-readable to the greatest extent possible. This allows LDAP clients and servers to exchange complex directory data while respecting the semantics of each attribute type.

When you fill out a form on paper, each box has a different format: a phone number looks like 555-1234, a date looks like March 15, and a name looks like 'Smith, John'. LDAP needs to know how to write all these different kinds of information as text strings.

§2Encoding Simple String Attributes

The RFC defines several simple string attribute types. Case Ignore String attributes are encoded as the string value itself, without special handling. Case Exact String attributes are also encoded as-is, preserving capitalization. Printable String attributes contain only printable ASCII characters—letters, digits, spaces, and punctuation—and are encoded directly. Numeric String attributes contain only digits and are encoded as a digit string.

Octet String attributes contain arbitrary binary data and are encoded as the raw string. IA5 String (IA5 = International Alphabet 5) attributes contain any ASCII character and are encoded as-is. T.61 String attributes use the T.61 character set and are encoded as the string value. For all these types, the rule is straightforward: the encoded form is the string itself, making these attributes easy to read and compare in LDAP output.

For most kinds of text, you just write it down exactly as it is. A name stays 'Alice', a number stays '12345', and a message stays as written.

§3Encoding Complex Attribute Types

Some attribute types are more complex. Case Ignore List and Case Exact List attributes contain multiple string values separated by the dollar sign character ($). For example, a case-ignore list might be encoded as value1$value2$value3. Distinguished Name attributes identify entries in the directory tree and are encoded according to X.500 DN (Distinguished Name) representation rules, which use a hierarchical comma-separated format like cn=Alice,ou=People,o=Example.

Boolean attributes have only two values and are encoded as the strings TRUE or FALSE. Integer attributes are encoded as the decimal representation of their numeric value. Object Identifier attributes are encoded using either symbolic names (if known) or numeric OID notation, preferring symbolic names whenever possible. This allows an OID like 2.5.4.10 (organization name) to be written as organizationName for readability.

Lists use a separator (a dollar sign) between items. Names follow a tree format. True and false get spelled out. Numbers are written as digits. And long technical codes can use friendly names if available.

§4Encoding Specialized Attribute Syntaxes

The RFC defines encoding rules for several specialized attribute syntaxes that are common in X.500 directories. Telephone Number attributes are encoded as printable strings. Telex Number attributes have three parts—the number, the country code, and the answerback code—separated by dollar signs in the format number$country$answerback. Teletex Terminal Identifier attributes are encoded as one or more printable string parts separated by dollar signs.

Facsimile Telephone Number attributes contain a phone number optionally followed by fax parameters like resolution and paper size, also separated by dollar signs. Presentation Address attributes are encoded according to X.500 presentation address conventions. These specialized types allow LDAP directories to store and transmit diverse types of contact and technical information while maintaining consistent encoding rules across different LDAP implementations.

Phone numbers, fax parameters, and specialized codes each have their own format, but they all use printable characters and dollar signs to separate the pieces when needed.

§5General Encoding Requirements and Principles

The RFC establishes three key requirements for all encoding rules. First, encoded values must be octet strings, suitable for transmission in LDAP protocol messages. Second, encoded values should be human-readable and displayable with little or no translation by LDAP client software—this means avoiding binary encoding or escape sequences where possible. Third, encoding rules must be complete and unambiguous, allowing a decoder to recover the original value reliably.

These principles ensure that LDAP can be a practical, human-friendly protocol for directory access. An administrator or user can read an LDAP output and understand what the values mean without decoding tricks. At the same time, LDAP remains formally precise and machine-interpretable. The RFC documents all encoding rules for the standard X.500 attribute syntaxes, and future RFCs can define encoding rules for new syntaxes by following the same principles and format.

Every attribute type gets a rule that says: write this information as text, make sure it is readable, and make sure the rule is clear enough that you can always decode it back to the original.

§6References

[1]The Directory: Overview of Concepts, Models and Services. CCITT, 1988.
[2]Information Processing Systems -- Open Systems Interconnection -- The Directory. ISO/IEC 9596, 1990.
[3]RFC 1274Barker, P. and S. Kille, "The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema", RFC 1274, November 1991.November 1991[5]RFC 1777Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995.March 1995
[6]The Directory: Models. CCITT Rec. X.501, 1988.