Network Working Group The North American Directory Forum
Request for Comments: 1218 April 1991
A Naming Scheme for c=US
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.
Summary
This RFC is a near-verbatim copy of a document, known as NADF-123,
which has been produced by the North American Directory Forum (NADF).
The NADF is a collection of organizations which offer, or plan to
offer, public Directory services in North America, based on the CCITT
X.500 Recommendations. As a part of its charter, the NADF must reach
agreement as to how entries are named in the public portions of the
North American Directory. NADF-123 is a scheme proposed for this
purpose. The NADF is circulating NADF-123 widely, expressly for the
purpose of gathering comments. The next meeting of the NADF is in
mid-July, and it is important for comments to be received prior to
the meeting, so that the scheme may receive adequate review.
A Naming Scheme for c=US
The North American Directory Forum
NADF-123
Supercedes: NADF-103, NADF-71
March 21, 1991
ABSTRACT
This is one of a series of documents produced for discussion within
the North American Directory Forum. Distribution, with attribution,
is unlimited. This document is being circulated for comment. The
deadline for comments is July 1, 1991. Comments should be directed
to the contact given on page 16.
Computer networks form the infrastructure between the users they
interconnect. For example, the electronic mail service offered by
computer networks provides a means for users to collaborate towards
some common goal. In the simplest cases, this collaboration may be
solely for the dissemination of information. In other cases, two
NADF [Page 1]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
users may work on a joint research project, using electronic mail as
their primary means of communication.
However, networks themselves are built on an underlying naming and
numbering infrastructure, usually in the form of names and addresses.
For example, some authority must exist to assign network addresses to
ensure that numbering collisions do not occur. This is of paramount
importance for an environment which consists of multiple service
providers.
It should be observed that there are several different naming
universes that can be realized in the Directory Information Tree
(DIT). For example, geographical naming, community naming, political
naming, organizational naming, and so on. The choice of naming
universe largely determines the difficulty in mapping a user's query
into a series of Directory operations. Although it is possible to
simultaneously support multiple naming universes with the DIT, this
is likely to be unnatural. As such, this proposal focuses on a
single naming universe.
The naming universe in this proposal is based on civil authority.
That is, it uses the existing civil naming infrastructure and
suggests a (nearly) straight-forward mapping on the DIT. There are
four components to the naming architecture:
(1) civil naming and optimized civil naming, which reflects
names assigned by civil authority;
(2) organizational naming, which reflects names assigned
within organizations;
(3) ADDMD naming, which reflects names assigned to public
providers within the Directory service; and,
(4) application naming, which reflects names assigned to OSI
entities.
An important characteristic is that entries should be listed wherever
searches for them are likely to occur. This implies that a single
object may be listed under several entries.
It must be emphasized that there are three distinct concepts which
are often confused when discussing a naming scheme:
NADF [Page 2]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
(1) user-friendly naming: a property of a Directory which
allows users to easily identity objects;
(2) user-friendly name: a technique for naming an object
which exhibits "friendliness" according to an arbitrary
set of user-criteria; and,
(3) Distinguished Name: the administratively assigned name
for an entry in the OSI Directory.
It must be emphasized that Distinguished Names are not necessarily
user-friendly names, and further, that user-friendly naming in the
Directory is a property of the Directory Service, not of
Distinguished Names.
The key aspect to appreciate for choice of RDNs is that they should
provide a large name space to avoid collisions: the naming strategy
must provide enough "real estate" to accommodate a large demand for
entries. This is the primary requirement for RDNs. A secondary
requirement is that RDNs should be meaningful (friendly to people)
and should not impede searching.
However, it is important to understand that this second requirement
can be achieved by using additional (non-distinguished) attribute
values. For example, if the RDN of an entry is
organizationName is Performance Systems International
then it is perfectly acceptable (and indeed desirable) to have other
values for the organizationName attribute, e.g.,
organizationName is PSI
The use of these abbreviated names greatly aids searching whilst
avoiding unnecessary Distinguished Name conflicts.
In order to appreciate the naming scheme which follows, it is
important to understand that it leverages, wherever possible,
existing naming infrastructure. That is, it relies heavily on non-
OSI naming authorities which already exist. Note that inasmuch as it
relies on existing naming authorities, there is little chance that
any "final" national decision could obsolete it. [Footnote: Any
naming scheme may be subject to the jurisdiction of certain national
agencies. For example, the US State Department is concerned with any
impact on US telecommunications treaty obligations.] (To do so would
require a national decision that disregards existing national and
NADF [Page 3]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
regional infrastructure, and establishes some entirely new and
different national naming infrastructure.)
Civil naming occurs at three levels:
(1) the national level, which contains objects that are
recognized throughout a country;
(2) the regional level, which contains objects that are
recognized throughout a state or state-equivalent; and,
(3) the local level, which contains objects that are
recognized within a populated place.
At the national-level (at least) three kinds of names may be listed:
(1) The States and State-Equivalents
(2) Organizations with National Standing
(3) ADDMD Operators
For each state or state-equivalent (the District of Columbia and the
eight outlying areas [Footnote: i.e., American Samoa, Federated
States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana
Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands of the US.]), an
instance of an
usStateOrEquivalent
object is used. The RDN is formed as
localityName is <FIPS 5 name>
e.g.,
localityName is California
provides the RDN for the State of California. In addition, this
entry would contain attributes identifying both the FIPS 5 alpha and
numeric code for the State, e.g.,
NADF [Page 4]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
fipsStateNumericCode is 06
fipsStateAlphaCode is CA
Of course, this entry could contain many other attributes such as
stateOrProvinceName is State of California
There is no authority in the United States which unambiguously
registers the alphanumeric names of organizations with national
standing. It is proposed that ANSI provide this registry and that
the ANSI alphanumeric name form be used as the basis for RDNs.
For each organization with national standing, an instance of an
usOrganization
object is used. The RDN is formed as
organizationName is <ANSI alphanumeric name form>
e.g.,
organizationName is Performance Systems International
In addition, this entry would contain attributes identifying the ANSI
Alphanumeric name form, e.g.,
ansiOrgNumericCode is 177777
Of course, this entry would contain many other attributes such as
organizationName is PSI
For the National Government, an instance of an
organization
object is also used, and the RDN is taken from the ANSI alphanumeric
name form registry.
There is no authority in the United States which unambiguously
registers the names of ADDMD operators. It is expected that the
North American Directory Forum will coordinate with the US CCITT
National Committee Study Group D to provide this registry. (At
NADF [Page 5]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
worst, the ADDMDs can use ANSI alphanumeric name forms for their RDN
attribute values.)
For each ADDMD operator, an instance of a
nadfADDMD
object is used. The RDN is formed as
addmdName is <NADF registered name>
e.g.,
addmdName is PSINet
For each populated place within a state or state-equivalent,
an instance of an
usPlace
object is used. The RDN is formed as
localityName is <FIPS 55 name>
e.g.,
localityName is Hartford
provides the RDN for the Hartford entry immediately subordinate to
the usStateOrEquivalent entry for the State of Connecticut. In
addition, this entry would contain attributes identifying the FIPS 55
place code, e.g.,
usPlaceCode is 37000
NADF [Page 6]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
An organization is said to have regional standing if it is registered
with the "Secretary of State" or similar entity within that region,
as an entity doing business in the region.
For each organization with regional standing, an instance of an
organization
object is used. The RDN is formed as
organizationName is <registered name of organization>
e.g.,
organizationName is Network Management Associates
might provide the RDN for a business entity registered with the State
of California. In this case, the entry thus named would be
immediately subordinate to the usStateOrEquivalent entry for the
State of California.
Note that other non-distinguished attributes, such as an ANSI numeric
name form value, may be included in such an entry --- the
organization object might actually be a usOrganization object.
For the Regional Government, an instance of an
organization
object is also used. The RDN is formed as:
organizationName is Government
At the local level (at least) three kinds of names may be listed:
(1) Persons
(2) Organizations with Local Standing
(3) MHS Distribution Lists
NADF [Page 7]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
Within a populated place, there is no centralized naming entity which
registers residential persons. It is proposed that entries for
persons be immediately subordinate to the usPlace object which most
accurately reflects their place of residence.
For each person (wishing to have an entry in the Directory), an
instance of a residentialperson
residentialPerson
object is used. The RDN is usually multi-valued, formed with
commonName is <person's full name>
and some other attribute, such as postalCode, streetAddress, etc.
However, because streetAddress is often considered private
information, based on agreement with the entity managing the DMD and
the listed person, some other, distinguishing attribute may be used,
including a "serial number" (having no other purpose). It should be
noted however that this is non-helpful in regards to searching,
unless other attribute values containing meaningful information are
added to the entry and made available for public access.
An organization is said to have local standing if it is registered
with the County or City Clerk or similar entity within that locality
as an entity "doing business" in that place.
For each organization with local standing, an instance of an
organization
object is used. The RDN is formed as
organizationName is <registered name of organization>
e.g.,
organizationName is The Tied House
might provide the RDN for a business entity registered with the City
of Mountain View. In this case, the entry thus named would be
immediately subordinate to the usPlace entry for the City of Mountain
View.
NADF [Page 8]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
Note that other non-distinguished attributes, such as an ANSI numeric
name form value, may be included in an entry. (That is, the
organization object might actually be a usOrganization object.)
For the Local Government, if any, an instance of an
organization
object is also used. The RDN is formed as:
organizationName is Government
The structure of the civil component of the architecture can be
concisely described as:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Element objectClass Superior RDN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
root 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
intl. 1 country 0 countryName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
natl. 2 usStateOrEquivalent 1 localityName
3 usOganization 1 organizationName
4 nadfADDMD 1 addmdName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
reg. 5 usPlace 2 localityName
6 organization 2 organizationName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
local 7 residentialPerson 5 commonName,
other
8 organization 5 organizationName
9 mhsDistributionList 5 commonName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider how an interrogation algorithm might locate a residential
person, given:
(1) a string denoting the person's real-world name;
(2) a string denoting the real-world name of the populated
place in which the person lives; and,
NADF [Page 9]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
(3) the Distinguished Name of the state or state-equivalent.
A straight-forward approach is to initiate a single-level search to
locate the desired populated place. The search results in zero or
more Distinguished Names being returned which correspond to the
string provided by the user. Then, for each populated place, a
subtree search might be initiated to locate the desired residential
person. If the number of populated places returned by the first
search is large, then this strategy is inefficient.
A better approach would be to initiate a single search, with a filter
combining the strings for both the person's real-world name and the
place's real-world name. Unfortunately, such a search would have to
involve the whole-subtree anchored at the Distinguished Name for the
state or state-equivalent, which would be inefficient.
As such, it may be desirable to optimize the civil naming component
by listing some entries at a higher level. This is accomplished by
using a multi-valued RDN formed by combining the RDNs of the entry
and its superior.
There are three cases in civil naming:
(1) listing an organization with regional standing at the
national level;
(2) listing an organization with local standing at the
regional level; and,
(3) listing a person with local standing at the regional
level.
Hence, under the optimized civil naming component, a single-level
search, anchored at the Distinguished Name for the state or state-
equivalent, could be used. Further, the implementation of a DSA
supporting this optimization would highly-index the attributes used
for searching, in order to achieve high-performance.
In order to clearly indicate that optimized civil naming is in
effect, a new attribute type, nadfSearchGuide, is introduced. An
attribute value of this type is placed in an entry to indicate which
optimizations are in effect. Using the residential example above,
the entry for the state or state-equivalent would contain an
nadfSearchGuide value indicating that when searching for entries of
type residentialPerson, a single-level search should be performed
with a filter containing the logical-and of two terms, one involving
the commonName attribute, and the other involving the localityName
attribute. The nadfSearchGuide is a refinement of the X.500
NADF [Page 10]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
searchGuide in that it indicates the depth of the search which should
be performed, and always contains an indication of the object class
for which the optimization exists.
Finally, note that for naming within organizations, this technique
might also be used.
An organization with standing within a state or state-equivalent may
be listed directly under c=US.
For an organization with regional standing, an instance of an
organization
object is used. The RDN is multi-valued, formed as
organizationName is <registered name of organization>
localityName is <FIPS 5 name>
e.g.,
organizationName is Network Management Associates
localityName is California
It must be emphasized that uniqueness within the RDN comes from using
the a regional localityName (state or state-Equivalent) in
association with the correspondent organizationName in that region.
An organization with standing within a populated place may be listed
directly under its state or state-equivalent.
For an organization with local standing, an instance of an
organization
object is used. The RDN is multi-valued, formed as
organizationName is <registered name of organization>
localityName is <FIPS 55 name>
NADF [Page 11]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
e.g.,
organizationName is The Tied House
localityName is City of Mountain View
It must be emphasized that uniqueness within the RDN comes from using
the a local localityName (populated place) in association with the
correspondent organizationName in that place.
An person may be listed directly under its state or state-equivalent.
For such a person, an instance of a
residentialPerson
object is used. The RDN is multi-valued, formed by taking the RDN of
the person and adding the RDN of the populated place containing the
person.
commonName is the Marshall T. Rose
postalCode is 94043-2112
localityName is City of Mountain View
Note that for optimization to occur, the RDN of the person must not
contain a localityName attribute value.
The internal structure of each usOrganization or organization object
is a matter for that organization to establish.
It is strongly recommended that organizationalUnit objects be used
for structuring. (If an organization uses a locality-based
organizational hierarchy, this information can still be represented
using the
organizationalUnit
object.)
The internal structure of each nadfADDMD object is a matter for that
service-provider to establish.
NADF [Page 12]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
There are (at least) four kinds of OSI entities which may be listed:
(1) Application Processes and Entities
(2) MHS Distribution Lists
(3) EDI Users
(4) Devices
Naming of OSI application processes and entities remains with the
scoping DMD. However, in order to foster interoperability, two
requirements are made: first, application entity objects must be
immediately subordinate to application process objects; and, second,
application entities are represented by the nadfApplicationEntity
object, which is identical to the applicationEntity object except
that the presence of an attribute value of
supportedApplicationContext is mandatory.
Consider the following examples, expressed in a concise format (read
left-to-right):
Federal Government:
{ c=US, o=Government }
The State of California:
{ c=US, l=California }
NADF [Page 13]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
The District of Columbia:
{ c=US, l=District of Columbia }
An organization with national standing:
{ c=US, o=Performance Systems International }
An ADDMD:
{ c=US, addmdName=PSINet }
The Government of the State of California:
{ c=US, l=California, o=Government }
The Government of the District of Columbia:
{ c=US, l=District of Columbia, o=Government }
A city within the State of California:
{ c=US, l=California, l=City of Mountain View }
An organization licensed to operate within the State of
California:
{ c=US,
l=California,
o=Network Management Associates, Inc. }
An optimized listing for a organization with regional
standing:
{ c=US,
{ l=California,
o=Network Management Associates }}
NADF [Page 14]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
A city government:
{ c=US,
l=California,
l=City of Mountain View,
o=Government }
A residential person:
{ c=US,
l=California,
l=City of Mountain View,
{ cn=Marshall T. Rose, postalCode=94043-2112 }}
An organization licensed to operate within a city:
{ c=US,
l=California,
l=City of Mountain View,
o=The Tied House }
An entity within the Federal Government:
{ c=US, o=Government, ou=Department of the Air Force }
An entity within an organization with national standing:
{ c=US,
o=Performance Systems International,
ou=Marketing }
This document is based on many sources, including, but not limited
to:
- Listing Services Database Generic Requirements, Bellcore
TA-TSY-000985;
- Common Directory Use ED 013 (Q/511) (EWOS/EGDIR/90/156);
and,
- The THORN X.500 Naming Architecture (UCL-45 revision 6.1).
NADF [Page 15]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
X.500: The Directory --- Overview of Concepts, Models, and
Service, CCITT Recommendation X.500, December, 1988.
US FIPS 5: Codes for the Identification of the States, The
District of Columbia and Outlying Areas of the United
States, and Associated Areas, US Department of Commerce
FIPS 5--2, May 28, 1987.
US FIPS 6: Counties and Equivalent Entities of the United
States, its Possessions, and Associated Areas, US
Department of Commerce FIPS 6--4, August 31, 1990.
US FIPS 55: Guideline: Codes for Named Populated Places,
Primary County Divisions, and other Locational Entities
of the United States and Outlying Areas, US Department of
Commerce FIPS 55--2, February 3, 1987.
The NADF is soliticting comments on this naming scheme. Comments
should be directed to:
Postal: Dr. Marshall T. Rose
Performance Systems International
5201 Great American Parkway
Suite 3106
Santa Clara, CA 95054
US
Telephone: +1 408 562 6222
Fax: +1 408 562 6223
Internet: mrose@psi.com
X.500: rose, psi, us
Comments should be received prior to July 1, 1991.
Appendix A: Naming Architecture
There are two aspects to the naming architecture: a DIT structure and
a set of related Schema definitions. These are shown on pages 17 and
18, respectively.
NADF [Page 16]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
DIT Structure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Element objectClass Superior RDN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
root 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
intl. 1 country 0 countryName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
natl. 2 usStateOrEquivalent 1 localityName
3 usOganization 1 organizationName
4 nadfADDMD 1 addmdName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
reg. 5 usPlace 2 localityName
6 organization 2 organizationName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
local 7 residentialPerson 5 commonName,
other
8 organization 5 organizationName
9 mhsDistributionList 5 commonName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
opt. 6* organization 1 organizationName,
localityName
7* residentialPerson 2 commonName,
other,
localityName
8* organization 2 organizationName,
localityName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
org. 10** organizationalUnit 3,6,8,10,11 orgUnitName
11** locality 3,6,8,10,11 localityName
12** organizationalRole 3,6,8,10,11 commonName
13** organizationalPerson 3,6,8,10,11 commonName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
appl. 14 applicationProcess 3,6,8,10,11 commonName
15 nadfApplicationEntity 14 commonName
16 mhsDistributionList 3,6,8,10,11 commonName
17 ediUser 3,6,8,10,11 ediName
18 device 3,6,8,10,11 commonName
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* = These are the optimized form of the corresponding element in the
civil component.
** = This scheme makes no requirements on the DIT structure within an
NADF [Page 17]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
organization. The organizational structure shown here is only for
exposition. For example, MHS objects are not listed beneath the
organizational level, though they are likely to occur within an
organization.
Schema Definitions
NADF-SCHEMA { joint-iso-ccitt mhs(6) group(6) al-grimstad(5)
nadf(1) schema(1) }
DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
OBJECT-CLASS, ATTRIBUTE
FROM InformationFramework
{ joint-iso-ccitt ds(5) module(1)
informationFramework(1) }
caseIgnoreStringSyntax, Criteria
FROM SelectedAttributeTypes
{ joint-iso-ccitt ds(5) module(1)
selectedAttributeTypes(5) }
locality, organization, applicationEntity, top
FROM SelectedObjectClasses
{ joint-iso-ccitt ds(5) module(1)
selectedObjectClasses(6) }
;
nadf OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-ccitt mhs(6) group (6)
al-grimstad(5) 1 }
nadfModule OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { nadf 1 }
nadfAttributeType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { nadf 4 }
nadfObjectClass OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { nadf 6 }
-- object classes
usStateOrEquivalent OBJECT-CLASS
-- localityName is used for RDN
-- values come from US FIPS PUB 5
SUBCLASS OF locality
MUST CONTAIN { fipsStateNumericCode,
fipsStateAlphaCode,
stateOrProvinceName }
MAY CONTAIN { nadfSearchGuide }
::= { nadfObjectClass 1 }
NADF [Page 18]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
usPlace OBJECT-CLASS
-- localityName is used for RDN
-- values come from US FIPS PUB 55
SUBCLASS OF locality
MUST CONTAIN { fipsPlaceNumericCode,
localityName }
MAY CONTAIN { nadfSearchGuide }
::= { nadfObjectClass 2 }
usCounty OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF usPlace
MUST CONTAIN { fipsCountyNumericCode }
::= { nadfObjectClass 3 }
usOrganization OBJECT-CLASS
-- organizationName is used for RDN
-- values come from ANSI Alphanumeric Registry
SUBCLASS OF organization
MUST CONTAIN { ansiOrgNumericCode }
MAY CONTAIN { nadfSearchGuide }
::= { nadfObjectClass 4 }
nadfApplicationEntity OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF applicationEntity
MUST CONTAIN { supportedApplicationContext }
::= { nadfObjectClass 5 }
nadfADDMD OBJECT-CLASS
-- addmdName is used for RDN
-- values come from NADF Registry (tbd)
SUBCLASS OF top
MUST CONTAIN { addmdName }
MAY CONTAIN { nadfSearchGuide }
::= { nadfObjectClass 6 }
-- auxiliary classes
nadfObject OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF top
MAY CONTAIN { supplementaryInformation }
::= { nadfObjectClass 7 }
NADF [Page 19]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
-- attribute types
fipsStateNumericCode ATTRIBUTE
-- semantics and values defined in US FIPS PUB 5
WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX
-- leading zero is significant
NumericString (SIZE (2))
MATCHES FOR EQUALITY
::= { nadfAttributeType 1 }
fipsStateAlphaCode ATTRIBUTE
-- semantics and values defined in US FIPS PUB 5
WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX
PrintableString (SIZE (2))
MATCHES FOR EQUALITY -- case-insensitive
::= { nadfAttributeType 2 }
fipsCountyNumericCode ATTRIBUTE
-- semantics and values defined in US FIPS PUB 6
WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX
-- leading zeros are significant
NumericString (SIZE (3))
MATCHES FOR EQUALITY
::= { nadfAttributeType 3 }
fipsPlaceNumericCode ATTRIBUTE
-- semantics and values defined in US FIPS PUB 55
WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX
-- leading zeros are significant
NumericString (SIZE (5))
MATCHES FOR EQUALITY
::= { nadfAttributeType 4 }
ansiOrgNumericCode ATTRIBUTE
-- semantics and values defined in ANSI registry
WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX
INTEGER
MATCHES FOR EQUALITY
::= { nadfAttributeType 5 }
addmdName ATTRIBUTE
-- semantics and values defined in NADF registry
WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX caseIgnoreStringSyntax
::= { nadfAttributeType 6 }
NADF [Page 20]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
nadfSearchGuide ATTRIBUTE
WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX NadfGuide
::= { nadfAttributeType 7 }
NadfGuide ::=
SET {
objectClass[0]
OBJECT-CLASS,
criteria[1]
Criteria,
subset[2]
INTEGER {
baseObject(0), oneLevel(1), wholeSubtree(2)
} DEFAULT oneLevel
}
supplementaryInformation ATTRIBUTE
WITH ATTRIBUTE-SYNTAX caseIgnoreStringSyntax (SIZE (1..76))
::= { nadfAttributeType 8 }
END
Appendix B: Revision History of this Scheme
The first version of this scheme (NADF-71) was contributed to the
North American Directory Forum at its November 27--30, 1990 meeting.
The (mis)features were:
(1) Because of the lack of confidence in ANSI registration
procedures, it was proposed that the US trademarks be
used as the basis for RDNs of organizations with
national-standing.
This proved unworkable since the same trademark may be
issued to different organizations in different
industries.
(2) There was no pre-existing registry used for populated
places.
This proved unworkable since the effort to define a new
registry is problematic.
The second version of this scheme was contributed to the ANSI
Registration Authority Committee at its January 30, 1991 meeting, and
the IETF OSI Directory Services Working Group at its February 12--13,
1991 meeting. The (mis)features were:
NADF [Page 21]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
(1) The ANSI numeric name form registry was used as the basis
for RDNs of organizations with national standings.
(2) The FIPS 5 state numeric code was used as the basis for
RDNs of states and state-equivalents.
(3) The FIPS 55 place numeric code was used as the basis for
RDNs of populated places.
The choice of numeric rather than alphanumeric name forms was
unpopular, but was motivated by the desire to avoid using the ANSI
alphanumeric name form registry, which was perceived as unstable.
The third version of this scheme was contributed to US State
Department Study Group D's MHS-MD subcommittee at its March 7--8 1991
meeting. That version used alphanumeric name forms for all objects,
under the perception that the ANSI alphanumeric name form registry
will prove stable. If the ANSI alphanumeric name form registry
proves unstable, then two alternatives are possible:
(1) disallow organizations with national-standing in the US
portion of the DIT; or,
(2) use the ANSI numeric name form registry instead.
Hopefully neither of these two undesirable alternatives will prove
necessary.
The fourth version of this scheme (NADF-103) was contributed to the
North American Directory Forum at its March 18--22, 1990 meeting.
This version introduced the notion of organizations with regional
standing being listed at the national level through the use of alias
names and multi-valued RDNs.
The current (fifth) version of this scheme (NADF-123) generalized the
listing concept by introducing the notion of optimized civil naming.
Further, the document was edited to clearly note the different naming
components and the relation between them.
NADF [Page 22]
RFC 1218 A Naming Scheme for c=US April 1991
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Author's Address
North American Directory Forum
c/o Theodore H. Myer
Rapport Communication, Inc.
3055 Q Street NW
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: +1 202-342-2727
NADF [Page 23]