Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory (RFC2293)
Original Publication Date: 1998-Mar-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-15
Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)
This document defines techniques for representing two types of information mapping in the OSI Directory: Mapping from a key to a value (or set of values), as might be done in a table lookup, and mapping from a distinguished name to an associated value (or values), where the values are not defined by the owner of the entry. This is achieved by use of a directory subtree. [STANDARDS-TRCK]
Network Working Group S. Kille Request for Comments: 2293 Isode Ltd. Obsoletes: 1837 March 1998 Category: Standards Track
Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory
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.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
This document defines techniques for representing two types of information mapping in the OSI Directory .
1. Mapping from a key to a value (or set of values), as might be done in a table lookup.
2. Mapping from a distinguished name to an associated value (or values), where the values are not defined by the owner of the entry. This is achieved by use of a directory subtree.
These techniques were developed for supporting MHS use of Directory , but are specified separately as they have more general applicability.
Kille Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2293 Table and Subtrees in the X.500 March 1998
1 Representing Flat Tables
Before considering specific function, a general purpose technique for representing tables in the directory is introduced. The schema for this is given in Figure 1. A table can be considered as an unordered set of key to (single or multiple) value mappings, where the key cannot be represented as a global name. There are four reasons why this may occur:
1. The object does not have a natural global name.
2. The object can only be named effectively in the context of being a key to a binding. In this case, the object will be given a natural global name by the table.
3. The object has a global name, and the table is being used to associate parameters with this object, in cases where they cannot be placed in the objects global entry. Reasons why they might not be so placed include:
o The object does not have a directory entry
o There is no authority to place the parameters in the global entry
o The parameters are not global --- they only make sense in the context of the table.
4. It is desirable to group information together as a performance optimization, so that the block of information may be widely replicated.
A table is represented as a single level subtree. The root of the subtree is an entry of object class Table. This is named with a common name descriptive of the table. The table will be located somewhere appropriate to its function. If a table is private to an MTA, it will be below the MTA’s entry. If it is shared by MTA’s in an organization, it will be located under the organization.
The generic table entry contains only a description. All instances will be subclassed, and the subclass will define the naming attribute. Two subclasses are defined:
Kille Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2293 Table and Subtrees in...