Browse Prior Art Database

Naming and Structuring Guidelines for X.500 Directory Pilots (RFC1617)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002452D
Original Publication Date: 1994-May-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-12
Document File: 28 page(s) / 37K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

P. Barker: AUTHOR [+2]

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1617: DOI

Abstract

This document defines a number of naming and structuring guidelines focused on White Pages usage. Alignment to these guidelines is recommended for directory pilots. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 9% of the total text.

Network Working Group P. Barker Request for Comments: 1617 University College London RARE Technical Report: 11 S. Kille Obsoletes: 1384 ISODE Consortium Category: Informational T. Lenggenhager SWITCH May 1994

Naming and Structuring Guidelines for X.500 Directory Pilots

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

Deployment of a Directory will benefit from following certain guidelines. This document defines a number of naming and structuring guidelines focused on White Pages usage. Alignment to these guidelines is recommended for directory pilots. The final version of this document will replace RFC 1384.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2 2. DIT Structure 3 2.1. Structure Rules 3 2.2. The Top Level of the DIT 3 2.3. Countries 4 2.4. Organisations 5 2.4.1. Directory Manager, Postmaster & Secretary 5 2.4.2. Depth of tree 6 2.4.3. Real World Organisational Structure 7 2.5. Multi-National Organisations 7 2.5.1. The Multi-National as a Single Entity 7 2.5.2. The Multi-National as a Loose Confederation 8 2.5.3. Loosely Linked DIT Sub-Trees 9 2.5.4. Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of the Above Approaches 9 3. Naming Style 10 3.1. Multi-Component Relative Distinguished Names 11 3.2. National Guidelines for Naming 11 3.3. Naming Organisation and Organisational Unit Names 11 3.4. Naming Human Users 12 3.5. Application Entities 13

RARE Working Group on Network Applications Support (WG-NAP) [Page 1]

RFC 1617 Naming and Structuring Guidelines for X.500 May 1994

4. Attribute Values 13 4.1. Basic Attribute Syntaxes 13 4.1.1. Printable String 14 4.1.2. IA5 String - T.50 14 4.1.3. Teletex String - T.61 14 4.1.4. Case Ignore String 14 4.1.5. Distinguished Name 14 4.2. Languages & Transliteration 14 4.2.1. Languages other than English 15 4.2.2. Transliteration 15 4.3. Access control 15 4.4. Selected Attributes 16 4.4.1. Personal Attributes 16 4.4.2. Organisational Attributes 18 4.4.3. Local Attributes 19 4.4.4. Miscellaneous Attributes 20 4.4.5. MHS Attributes 21 4.4.6. Postal Attributes 21 4.4.7. Telecom Attributes 22 5. Miscellany 22 5.1. Schema consistency of aliases 22 5.2. Organisational Units 23 6. References 23 7. Security Considerations 23 8. Authors’ Addresses 24 9. Appendix - Example Entries 25

1. Introduction

The intended audience for this document are mainly data managers using X.500 Directory Services. With the help of these guidelines it should be easier for them to define the structure for the part of the Directory Information Tree they want to model, e.g., the representation of their organisation in the Directory. In addition, decisions like which data elements to store for each kind of entry shall be supported.

These guidelines concentrate mainly on the White Pages use of the Directory, the X.500 application with most operational experience today, nonetheless many recommendations are also valid...

Processing...
Loading...