💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc1837.txt captured on 2023-05-24 at 21:12:48.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group S. Kille
Request for Comments: 1837 ISODE Consortium
Category: Experimental August 1995
Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory
Status of this Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document defines techniques for representing two types of
information mapping in the OSI Directory [1].
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
[2], but are specified separately as they have more general
applicability.
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.
Kille Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 1837 Representing Subtrees August 1995
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
optimisation, 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 organisation, it will be located under the organisation.
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:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
table OBJECT-CLASS ::= {
SUBCLASS OF {top}
MUST CONTAIN {commonName}
MAY CONTAIN {manager}
ID oc-table}
tableEntry OBJECT-CLASS ::= {
SUBCLASS OF {top}
MAY CONTAIN {description} 10
ID oc-table-entry}
textTableEntry OBJECT-CLASS ::= {
SUBCLASS OF {tableEntry}
MUST CONTAIN {textTableKey}
MAY CONTAIN {textTableValue}
ID oc-text-table-entry}
textTableKey ATTRIBUTE ::= {
Kille Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 1837 Representing Subtrees August 1995
SUBTYPE OF name 20
WITH SYNTAX DirectoryString {ub-name}
ID at-text-table-key}
textTableValue ATTRIBUTE ::= {
SUBTYPE OF name
WITH SYNTAX DirectoryString {ub-description}
ID at-text-table-value}
distinguishedNameTableEntry OBJECT-CLASS ::= {
SUBCLASS OF {tableEntry} 30
MUST CONTAIN {distinguishedNameTableKey}
ID oc-distinguished-name-table-entry}
distinguishedNameTableKey ATTRIBUTE ::= {
SUBTYPE OF distinguishedName
ID at-distinguished-name-table-key}
Figure 1: Representing Tables
1. TextEntry, which define table entries with text keys, which may
have single or multiple values of any type. An attribute is
defined to allow a text value, to support the frequent text key to
text value mapping. Additional values may be defined.
2. DistinguishedNameEntry. This is used for associating information
with globally defined objects. This approach should be used where
the number of objects in the table is small or very sparsely
spread over the DIT. In other cases where there are many objects
or the objects are tightly clustered in the DIT, the subtree
approach defined in Section 2 will be preferable. No value
attributes are defined for this type of entry. An application of
this will make appropriate subtyping to define the needed values.
This is best illustrated by example. Consider the MTA:
CN=Bells, OU=Computer Science,
O=University College London, C=GB
Suppose that the MTA needs a table mapping from private keys to fully
qualified domain names (this example is fictitious). The table might
be named as:
CN=domain-nicknames,
CN=Bells, OU=Computer Science,
O=University College London, C=GB
Kille Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 1837 Representing Subtrees August 1995
To represent a mapping in this table from "euclid" to
"bloomsbury.ac.uk", the entry:
CN=euclid, CN=domain-nicknames,
CN=Bells, OU=Computer Science,
O=University College London, C=GB
will contain the attribute:
TextTableValue=bloomsbury.ac.uk
A second example, showing the use of DistinguishedNameEntry is now
given. Consider again the MTA:
CN=Bells, OU=Computer Science,
O=University College London, C=GB
Suppose that the MTA needs a table mapping from MTA Name to bilateral
agreement information of that MTA. The table might be named as:
CN=MTA Bilateral Agreements,
CN=Bells, OU=Computer Science,
O=University College London, C=GB
To represent information on the MTA which has the Distinguished Name:
CN=Q3T21, ADMD=Gold 400, C=GB
There would be an entry in this table with the Relative Distinguished
Name of the table entry being the Distinguished Name of the MTA being
referred to. The MTA Bilateral information would be an attribute in
this entry. Using a non-standard notation, the Distinguished Name of
the table entry is:
DistinguishedNameTableValue=<CN=Q3T21, ADMD=Gold 400, C=GB>,
CN=MTA Bilateral Agreements,
CN=Bells, OU=Computer Science,
O=University College London, C=GB
Kille Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 1837 Representing Subtrees August 1995
2. Representing Subtrees
A subtree is similar to a table, except that the keys are constructed
as a distinguished name hierarchy relative to the location of the
subtree in the DIT. The subtree effectively starts a private "root",
and has distinguished names relative to this root. Typically, this
approach is used to associate local information with global objects.
The schema used is defined in Figure 2. Functionally, this is
equivalent to a table with distinguished name keys. The table
approach is best when the tree is very sparse. This approach is
better for subtrees which are more populated.
The subtree object class defines the root for a subtree in an
analogous means to the table. Information within the subtree will
generally be defined in the same way as for the global object, and so
---------------------------------------------------------------------
subtree OBJECT-CLASS ::= {
SUBCLASS OF {top}
MUST CONTAIN {commonName}
MAY CONTAIN {manager}
ID oc-subtree}
Figure 2: Representing Subtrees
no specific object classes for subtree entries are needed.
For example consider University College London.
O=University College London, C=GB
Suppose that the UCL needs a private subtree, with interesting
information about directory objects. The table might be named as:
CN=private subtree,
O=University College London, C=GB
UCL specific information on Inria might be stored in the entry:
O=Inria, C=FR,
CN=private subtree,
O=University College London, C=GB
Practical examples of this mapping are given in [2].
Kille Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 1837 Representing Subtrees August 1995
3. Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements for work on this document are given in [2].
References
[1] The Directory --- overview of concepts, models and services,
1993. CCITT X.500 Series Recommendations.
[2] Kille, S., "MHS use of the X.500 Directory to Support MHS
Routing", RFC 1801, ISODE Consortium, June 1995.
4. Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
5. Author's Address
Steve Kille
ISODE Consortium
The Dome
The Square
Richmond
TW9 1DT
England
Phone: +44-81-332-9091
Internet EMail: S.Kille@ISODE.COM
X.400: I=S; S=Kille; O=ISODE Consortium; P=ISODE;
A=Mailnet; C=FI;
DN: CN=Steve Kille,
O=ISODE Consortium, C=GB
UFN: S. Kille, ISODE Consortium, GB
Kille Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 1837 Representing Subtrees August 1995
A. Object Identifier Assignment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
mhs-ds OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {iso(1) org(3) dod(6) internet(1)
private(4) enterprises(1) isode-consortium (453) mhs-ds (7)}
tables OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mhs-ds 1}
oc OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {tables 1}
at OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {tables 2}
oc-subtree OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {oc 1}
oc-table OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {oc 2} 10
oc-table-entry OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {oc 3}
oc-text-table-entry OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {oc 4}
oc-distinguished-name-table-entry OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {oc 5}
at-text-table-key OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {at 1}
at-text-table-value OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {at 2}
at-distinguished-name-table-key OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {at 3}
Figure 3: Object Identifier Assignment
Kille Experimental [Page 7]