Network Working Group The North American Directory Forum
Request for Comments: 1255 September 1991
Obsoletes: RFC 1218
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-175,
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-175 represents the NADF's agreement
in this area.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................... 2
2 Approach .............................................. 2
2.1 Names and User-Friendliness ......................... 3
2.2 Choice of RDN Names ................................. 3
2.3 Outline of the Scheme ............................... 4
3 The Naming Process .................................... 4
3.1 Right-To-Use ........................................ 4
3.2 Registration ........................................ 6
3.3 Publication ......................................... 6
4 Structuring Objects ................................... 7
4.1 The National Level .................................. 7
4.2 The Regional Level .................................. 7
4.3 The Local Level ..................................... 9
4.4 ADDMD Operators ..................................... 10
4.5 Summary of Structuring Objects ...................... 11
5 Entity Objects ........................................ 12
5.1 Organizations ....................................... 12
5.1.1 Kinds of Organizations ............................ 12
5.1.2 Modeling Organizations ............................ 13
5.2 Persons ............................................. 14
6 Listing Entities ...................................... 15
6.1 Organizations ....................................... 15
NADF [Page 1]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
6.2 Persons ............................................. 16
7 Usage Examples ........................................ 17
7.1 Organizations with National-Standing ................ 17
7.2 Organizations with Regional-Standing ................ 18
7.3 Organizations with Local-Standing ................... 19
7.4 Organizations with Foreign-Standing ................. 20
7.5 Persons ............................................. 21
8 Bibliography .......................................... 22
Appendix A: Revision History of this Scheme ............. 22
Security Considerations ................................. 25
Author's Address ........................................ 25
A Naming Scheme for c=US
The North American Directory Forum
Supercedes: NADF-166, 143, 123, 103, 71
July 12, 1991
1. Introduction
Computer networks form the infrastructure between the users they
interconnect, and networks 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.
2. Approach
It should be observed that there are several different naming
universes that could be used 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 to find useful information. Although
it is possible to simultaneously support multiple naming universes
with the DIT, this is likely to be unnatural. As such, this scheme
focuses on a single naming universe.
The naming universe in this scheme is based on civil authority. That
is, it uses the existing civil naming infrastructure and suggests a
(nearly) straight-forward mapping on the DIT. An important
characteristic is that entries can be listed wherever searches for
them are likely to occur. This implies that a single object may be
listed as several separate entries.
NADF [Page 2]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
2.1. Names and User-Friendliness
It must be emphasized that there are two distinct concepts which are
often confused when discussing a naming scheme:
(1) user-friendly naming:
a property of a Directory which allows users to easily
identity objects of interest; and,
(2) 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.
2.2. Choice of RDN 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
Distinguished Names. 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 wherever possible it leverages 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 this scheme. (Any naming scheme may
NADF [Page 3]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
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 regional
infrastructure, and establishes some entirely new and different
national naming infrastructure.
2.3. Outline of the Scheme
The naming scheme is divided into four parts:
(1) a discussion of the right-to-use, registration, and
publication concepts;
(2) a discussion of objects with national, regional, local,
and foreign standing;
(3) a discussion of objects which may be listed at
national, regional, and local levels; and,
(4) a discussion of how RDNs are formed for listing entries
at each different level.
3. The Naming Process
There are three stages to the naming process.
3.1. Right-To-Use
First, a naming authority must establish the right-to-use for any
name to be used, within the jurisdiction of the given naming
authority. Names that are used in public are generally constrained
by public laws. Names that are only used in private are a private
matter. We are primarily concerned here with public names because
these are the names that are most interesting to enter into public
directories where we can search for them.
There is a global governmental/civil/organizational infrastructure
already in place to name and number things like people, cars, houses,
buildings and streets; localities like populated places, cities,
counties, states, and countries; organizations like businesses,
schools, and governments; and other entities like computers,
printers, ports, routers, processes, files, filesystems, networks,
management domains, and so on. There are also naming (and numbering)
authorities for various standards and for networks (e.g., ISO/IEC,
CCITT, IANA) which depend on acceptance by their constituent
communities for their authority.
NADF [Page 4]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
This collective infrastructure is comprised of a very large number of
authorities that we will call naming authorities. Naming authorities
tend toward hierarchical organization. Parents have authority
(granted by government) to choose the names of new-born children, the
courts have authority to change a person's name, car makers have
authority to name the models of cars they build (within the limits of
trademarking law), and they are obligated to assign unique serial
numbers to each car. Cities assign names to their streets and
districts, states assign city, county, and township names, and so on.
State governments also assign names to "registered" organizations
that operate under state charters, which in turn name their own
suborganizations. Cities and Counties license businesses to use
their chosen (unambiguous) names "in association with" the city and
county names. Companies name and number the computers and
communications devices they make and sell. There are many many name
spaces, some of which are subordinate to others, and some of which
are independent.
Public names must be "registered" in some "public record" to record
the fact of the assignment of the right-to-use to specific "owners."
In general, this is to prevent collisions of the right-to-use
assignments in public shared name spaces. For example, unique names
given to corporations are registered by the state of incorporation.
A request to use a new name for any corporation must not conflict
with the name of any other corporation registered in the same state.
The same applies for businesses licensed within cities and counties.
Establishment of the right-to-use for a name is not a Directory
Service. The right-to-use for a name is always derived from some
other (non-directory) source of authority because of the legal
aspects of intellectual property rights which are entirely outside
the scope of directory service specifications. People and
organizations attach great value to the names they are allowed to
associate with their lives and businesses, and intellectual property
law protects their interests with respect to these values.
This is not to say that directory service designers and providers
have no interest in the processes and procedures for establishment of
the right-to-use for the names that will be entered into any
directory. Indeed, without a supply of rightfully-usable names,
there cannot be any directory. But, given an adequate supply of
registered names, the directory service is not otherwise concerned.
We should note here that some naming authorities must deal with name
spaces that are shared among large communities (such as computer
networks) in which collisions will occur among applicants for desired
name assignments, while other name spaces (such as for given names of
children in a family) are not shared outside the family. Sharing is
NADF [Page 5]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
always a problem, which has led to trademarking laws, business
license laws, and so on. Naming within organizations should be
easier, because it is "in the family," so to speak. Hierarchical
naming schemes facilitate distribution of naming authority.
3.2. Registration
Second, a name may be bound (as a value) to some object attribute.
Given the right to use a name, a Naming Authority, such as a family
which has an inherited surname and, more or less, has the right to
use any names it pleases for its children's given names, must bind
selected names to selected object attributes (e.g., firstname=Einar).
Note that this same name might also be used as the first name or
middle name of other children, as long as each sequence of given
names of each family member is distinguished (i.e., none are
duplicates) within the family. Wise families do not bind the same
sequence of given names to more than one child. Some avoid any
multiple use of a single name. Some use generational qualifiers to
prevent parent-child conflicts.
The Internet Domain Name System (DNS) names top level domains which
are then free (within some technical limits) to chose and bind names
to entries which are subordinate to a given named domain, and so
forth down the DNS name tree. The ISO/CCITT naming system serves the
same purposes in other separate name spaces.
3.3. Publication
Third, after binding, a name must be advertised or published in some
community if it is to be referenced by others. If it is not
advertised or published, then no one can refer to it.
This publication stage is what the Directory Service is all about.
The Directory contains entries for "listed" names (or numbers) that
are bound to the attributes of the entries in the directory DIT.
Historically speaking, the directory business is a subclass of the
publishing business, serving to dereference names into knowledge
about what they stand for.
It is important to keep in mind that a directory "listing entry" is
not a "registration" unless a particular segment of the directory
also just happens to be the authoritative master register of some
naming authority. Registration and listing are very different
service functions, though it is conceivable that they might be
combined in a single DIT.
For example, in the United States of America, each state name is
NADF [Page 6]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
registered by the Congress by inclusion of the name in the
legislation that "admits each State into the Union." Note however
that the name is also then published in many places (such as on maps
and in directories), while the master "register" is kept with the
other original records of laws enacted by the Congress and signed by
the President. Also, the name is then entered (listed) in many
directories, in association with the name "The United States of
America." And so on down the civil naming tree, with entities named
in each state, etc. It is certainly not the case that the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) registers the names of the States
in the United States of America! That right and duty is clearly
reserved to the Government of the United States of America.
On the other hand, in the Internet DNS, the act of inserting a given
rightfully-usable name and address entry into a nameserver
constitutes simultaneous registration and directory publication.
4. Structuring Objects
The first step in providing a civil naming infrastructure is to model
the geographical/governmental entities which provide a basis for the
assignment of public names.
4.1. The National Level
The nation is modeled with an object of class "country", subordinate
to the root of the DIT, and has an RDN consisting of a single
attribute value assertion:
countryName= US
The entry (minimally) contains these attributes:
objectClass= country
description= United States of America
4.2. The Regional Level
Within the nation, there are regions. Each region corresponds to a
state or state-equivalent as recognized by the US Congress. The list
of these is maintained in US FIPS 5. A sample entry from this FIPS
document looks like this:
NADF [Page 7]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
+------------+---------+-------+
| | State | State |
| FIPS-5 | Numeric | Alpha |
| Name | Code | Code |
+------------+---------+-------+
| | | |
| California | 06 | CA |
| | | |
+------------+---------+-------+
Each region is modeled with an object of class
"usStateOrEquivalent", which is defined thusly:
usStateOrEquivalent OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF locality, nadfObject
MUST CONTAIN { localityName,
fipsStateNumericCode,
fipsStateAlphaCode,
stateOrProvinceName }
Each entry is subordinate to "c=US", and has an RDN consisting
of a single attribute value assertion:
stateOrProvinceName= <FIPS-5 name>
e.g.,
stateOrProvinceName= California
Each entry (minimally) contains these attributes:
objectClass= usStateOrEquivalent
description= <official name of region>
localityName= <FIPS-5 name>
localityName= <FIPS-5 state alpha code>
fipsStateAlphaCode= <FIPS-5 state alpha code>
fipsStateNumericCode= <FIPS-5 state numeric code>
e.g.,
objectClass= usStateOrEquivalent
description= State of California
localityName= California
localityName= CA
fipsStateAlphaCode= CA
NADF [Page 8]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
fipsStateNumericCode= 06
4.3. The Local Level
Within each region, there are places. Each place corresponds to a
county or county-equivalent as recognized by the regional government.
The list of these is maintained in US FIPS 55 as a populated place
with a five-digit numeric place code starting with "99." A sample
entry from this FIPS document looks like this:
+---------+---------+-------+-----+----------------------+-----+
| State | Place | State | | | |
| Numeric | Numeric | Alpha | | FIPS-55 | |
| Code | Code | Code | | Name | |
+---------+---------+-------+-----+----------------------+-----+
| | | | | | |
| 06 | 99085 | CA | ... | Santa Clara (County) | ... |
| | | | | | |
+---------+---------+-------+-----+----------------------+-----+
(Any parenthetical text in the FIPS-55 name is considered a
"remark" about the place.)
Each county is modeled with an object of class
"usCountyOrEquivalent", which is defined thusly:
usPlace OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF locality, nadfObject
MUST CONTAIN { localityName,
fipsPlaceNumericCode }
usCountyOrEquivalent OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF usPlace
MUST CONTAIN { fipsCountyNumericCode }
Each entry is subordinate to the entry naming the region which
contains the county, and has an RDN consisting of a single
attribute value assertion:
localityName= <FIPS-55 name without remarks>
e.g.,
localityName= Santa Clara
Each entry (minimally) contains these attributes:
NADF [Page 9]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
objectClass= usCountyOrEquivalent
fipsPlaceNumericCode= <FIPS-55 place numeric code>
fipsCountyNumericCode= <last three digits of FIPS-55
place code>
stateOrProvinceName= <FIPS-55 state alpha code>
stateOrProvinceName= <FIPS-5 corresponding name>
description= <FIPS-55 name with remarks>
e.g.,
objectClass= usCountyOrEquivalent
fipsPlaceNumericCode= 99085
fipsCountyNumericCode= 085
stateOrProvinceName= California
stateOrProvinceName= CA
description= County of Santa Clara
In addition, for each populated place named within the county,
a non-distinguished "localityName" attribute value may be
present to aid searching, e.g.,
localityName= Mountain View
localityName= San Jose
and so on.
4.4. ADDMD Operators
Also within the nation, there are public Directory service providers.
Each service-provider corresponds to an ADDMD operator as recognized
by the NADF. Each ADDMD operator is modeled with an object of class
"nadfADDMD", which is defined thusly:
nadfADDMD OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF nadfObject
MUST CONTAIN { addmdName }
MAY CONTAIN { organizationName,
organizationalAttributeSet }
Each entry is subordinate to "c=US", and has an RDN consisting of a
single attribute value assertion:
addmdName= <NADF registered name>
e.g.,
addmdName= PSINet
NADF [Page 10]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
Each entry (minimally) contains this attribute:
objectClass= nadfADDMD
The structure of the subtree below each "nadfADDMD" entry is a matter
for that service-provider to establish. It must be emphasized that
such entries are used to provide a "private" namespace for each
service provider, as envisioned in NADF-128. This "nadfADDMD" entry
is distinct from a service provider's "organization" entry which
would be used to contain organizational information about the service
provider.
root
/
/
/
(----)
(c=US)
(----)
/ | \
/ | \
/------------/ | \------\
/ | \
for each state or (------) / \ (---------) for
state-equivalent (st=...) / \ (addmd=...) each
(------) / \ (---------) ADDMD
/ \ / \
/ \ /national \
/------------/ \ / listings \
/ \ -------------
/ \
(-----) for each /\
(l=...) county or / \
(-----) county-equivalent / \
| / \
| /regional\
| / listings \
| ------------
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ local \
/listings \
-----------
5. Entity Objects
The next step in using the civil naming infrastructure is to model
the entities which reside within the geographical/governmental
structure.
5.1. Organizations
Organizations exist at several levels.
5.1.1. Kinds of Organizations
An organization is said to have national-standing if it is chartered
(created and named) by the US Congress. An example of such an
NADF [Page 12]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
organization might be a national laboratory. There is no other
entity which is empowered by government to confer national-standing
on organizations. However, ANSI maintains an alphanumeric nameform
registration for organizations, and this will be used as the public
directory service basis for conferring national-standing on private
organizations.
An organization is said to have regional-standing if it is chartered
by the government of that region. An example of such an organization
might be a public university. In addition, private organizations may
achieve regional-standing by registering with the "Secretary of
State" (or similar entity) within that region -- this is termed a
"doing business as" (DBA) registration.
NOTE:
An organization may have a DBA registration in several states,
even though it is incorporated in only one state. Where an
organization registers itself is largely dependent on where it
might choose to incorporate, and where it might choose to
locate (and license) its business operations.
For example, a large organization might have a DBA registration
in most of the 50 states, and be incorporated in Delaware. For
the purposes of this naming scheme, such an organization is
said to have regional-standing in each state where it has a DBA
registration. This DBA registration confers the sole right to
use the DBA name in association with the named jurisdiction of
the registration authority.
An organization is said to have local-standing if it is chartered by
a local government within that place. In addition, private
organizations may achieve local-standing by registering with a
"County Clerk" (or similar entity) within that place -- this is
termed a "doing business as" (DBA) registration. Note that local-
standing is somewhat ambiguous in that there may be multiple local
governments contained within a county or county-equivalent.
Depending on local government rules of incorporation and containment,
registering with one entity may prevent others from registering that
same name with other entities contained within that place. In order
to avoid ambiguity, other distinguishing attributes, such as
"streetAddress", may be needed to provide uniqueness.
5.1.2. Modeling Organizations
In the DIT, an organization is modeled with an object of
class "organization". In addition, some combination of the
following auxiliary object classes might also be used:
NADF [Page 13]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
(1) if an organization has national-standing derived from
ANSI registration, then this is modeled by including in
the entry an object class attribute value of
"ansiOrgObject", which is defined thusly:
ansiOrgObject OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF top
MUST CONTAIN { ansiOrgNumericCode }
(2) if an organization has national-standing (either in the
US or some other nation), then it may be necessary to
identify the country which corresponds to the registry
which names the organization. This is modeled by
including in the entry an object class attribute value
of "nationalObject", which is defined thusly:
nationalObject OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF top
MUST CONTAIN { countryName }
(3) if an organization has local-standing, then it may be
necessary to identify the place in US FIPS 55 which
corresponds to the registry which names the
organization. This is modeled by including in the
entry an object class attribute value of
"fips55Object", which is defined thusly:
fips55Object OBJECT-CLASS
SUBCLASS OF top
MUST CONTAIN { fipsPlaceNumericCode }
MAY CONTAIN { stateOrProvinceName }
5.2. Persons
There are two kinds of entries for a person: organizational person
and residential person.
Definitions for an organizational person are a local matter to be
decided by each organization. It is suggested that an organizational
person be modeled with an object of class "organizationalPerson".
Outside of organizations, persons exist only in a residential context.
As such they always have local standing. For a given person, it
should always be possible to identify the place in US FIPS 55 which
corresponds to the "smallest" populated place where any person
resides, and then use the code associated with that place to aid in
NADF [Page 14]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
distinguishing the person. A residential person is modeled with an
object of class "residentialPerson". In addition, since it may be
necessary to identify the place in US FIPS 55 which corresponds
to where the person resides, an object class attribute value
of "fips55Object" may be present in entries corresponding to
residential persons.
6. Listing Entities
The final step is to define how entities are listed within the
context of the civil naming infrastructure. Note than an entity may
have several listings (DNs) in different parts of the Directory.
6.1. Organizations
The RDN used when listing an organization depends on both the
standing of the organization, and where the listing is to be placed:
+----------------------------------------+
+-------------------| Listing (RDN) under |
| Entity | c=US | c=US, st=X | c=US, st=X, l=Y |
+-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
| national-standing | o | o, c=US | o, c=US |
+-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
| regional-standing | o, st=X | o | o |
+-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
| .. (other region) | | o, st=Z | o, st=Z |
+-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
| local-standing | o, st=X | o, fips55 | o, fips55 |
| | fips55 | | |
+-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
| .. (other region) | | o, st=Z | o, st=Z, fips55 |
| | | fips55 | |
+-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
| foreign-standing | o, ... | o, ..., c | o, ..., c |
| | c | | |
+-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
This scheme makes no requirements on the DIT structure within
an organization. However, the following naming architecture
is suggested:
Listing organizational persons is a local matter to be decided by
each organization.
Residential persons are identified by the place where they reside,
NADF [Page 16]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
usually with a multi-valued RDN consisting of a "commonName"
attribute value, and some other distinguished attribute value.
Although an obvious choice is to use something like "postalCode" or
"streetAddress", it should be noted that this information may be
considered private. Hence, some other, distinguishing attribute
value may be used -- possibly even a "serial number" attribute value
which has no other purpose other than to give uniqueness. (It should
be noted that an attribute of this kind is not helpful in regards to
searching -- other attribute values containing meaningful information
should be added to the entry and made available for public access, as
an aid to selection.)
The RDN used when listing residential persons depends on where the
listing is to be placed:
Note that listing of foreign persons is for further study.
7. Usage Examples
In the examples which follow, the "*"-character is used to denote any
arbitrary value for an attribute type.
7.1. Organizations with National-Standing
Suppose that the organization
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
has national-standing by virtue of having been chartered by the US
Congress. According to the table in Section 6.1, this organization
has the right to list as any (or all) of these names:
has national-standing by virtue of having an alphanumeric nameform in
the ANSI registry. According to the table in Section 6.1, this
organization has the right to list as any (or all) of these names:
has regional-standing by virtue of having a DBA registration with the
Secretary of State for the State of California. According to the
table in Section 6.1, this organization has the right to list as any
has local-standing by virtue of having a DBA registration with the
City Clerk for the City of Mountain View in the State of California.
According to the table in Section 6.1, this organization has the
right to list as any (or all) of these names:
(1) national-listing:
NADF [Page 19]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
{ c=US,
{ o=St. James Infirmary, st=California,
fips55=49670 } }
(2) regional-listing:
{ c=US, st=California,
{ o=St. James Infirmary, fips55=49670 } }
has foreign-standing by virtue of having a DBA registration
throughout Sweden. According to the table in Section 6.1, this
organization has the right to list as any (or all) of these names:
(1) national-listing:
{ c=US,
{ o=Erik's Fisk, c=SE } }
NADF [Page 20]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
(2) regional-listing:
{ c=US, st=*,
{ o=Erik's Fisk, c=SE } }
(3) local-listing:
{ c=US, st=*, l=*,
{ o=Erik's Fisk, c=SE } }
7.5. Persons
Suppose that the person
Marshall T. Rose
residing in the City of Mountain View in the State of California,
wishes to be listed in the Directory. According to the table in
Section 6.2, this person might be listed as any of these names:
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 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.
Appendix A: 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 22]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 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
NADF at its March 18-22, 1991 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 fifth version of this scheme (NADF-123) was produced at the NADF
meeting (and also published in the Internet community as RFC1212).
This version generalized the listing concept by introducing the
notion of optimized civil naming. Further, the document was edited
to clearly note the different naming sub-structures and the relation
between them.
The sixth version of this scheme (NADF-143) was contributed to the
NADF before its July 9-12, 1991 meeting, and was edited to reflect
comments received from the Internet and other communities. The
changes were:
(1) The schema definitions were removed from Appendix A and
placed in a separate document, NADF-132. In NADF-132:
NADF [Page 23]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 1991
the prefix object-identifier was changed (the original
assignment was in error); and, the definition of a
"nadfADDMD" object was considerably expanded.
(2) States and state-equivalents are now named using
attribute values of "stateOrProvinceName".
(3) Populated places now correspond to counties, though
FIPS 55 is still used extensively.
(4) The text of this document was reworked to more clearly
distinguish between registration and listing.
(5) The "foreignOrganization" and "fips55Object" object
classes were added.
The seventh version of this scheme (NADF-166) was produced at
the NADF meeting. It made a few changes:
(1) It was noted that organizations with local standing may
need additional distinguishing attributes when listing.
(2) The "usOrganization" object class was removed and
replaced with the auxiliary object class
"ansiOrgObject".
(3) The "foreignOrganization" object class was removed and
replaced with the auxiliary object class
"nationalObject". This may be used when listing any
organization of national standing (regardless of
whether that organization is US-based). For example,
an organization with US national-standing would need
this when being listed at the regional or local level.
(4) Figures corresponding to the DIT structures were added,
along with some minor additional text in the usage
examples.
(5) The Acknowledgements section, long out of date, was
removed.
The eighth (current) version of this scheme was produced after
the NADF meeting. It corrects a few typographical errors.
NADF [Page 24]
RFC 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US September 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
