[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 RFC 1430

Network Working Group                               S.E. Hardcastle-Kille
INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993
                                                                E. Huizer
                                                               SURFnet bv
                            Corporation for National Research Initiatives
                                                                 R. Hobby
                                          University of California, Davis
                                                                  S. Kent
                                                 Bolt, Beranek and Newman
                                                              J.B. Postel
                                           Information Sciences Institute
                                                             October 1992

                   A strategic Plan for deploying an
                       Internet Directory Service

Status of this Memo

     This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working
     documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
     and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
     working documents as Internet Drafts.

     Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months.
     Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
     documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as
     reference material or to cite them other than as a ``working draft''
     or ``work in progress.''

     Please check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the
     internet-drafts Shadow Directories on nic.ddn.mil, nnsc.nsf.net,
     nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com, or munnari.oz.au to learn the current
     status of any Internet Draft.

When finalised the draft document will be submitted to the RFC editor as an
informational document. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Please send
comments to the authors.


There are a number of reasons why a new Internet Directory Service is
required. This document describes an overall strategy for deploying a
Directory Service on the Internet, based on the OSI X.500 Directory Service.
It then describes in more detail the initial steps which need to be taken
in order to achieve these goals, and how work already undertaken by IETF WGs
is working towards these goals.

The expiration date of this internet draft is 19 april 1993.

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993


1    REQUIREMENTS                                                       3

2    SUMMARY OF SOLUTION                                                3

3    INFORMATION FRAMEWORK                                              4
3.1  The technical model                                                4
3.2  Extending the technical model                                      4
3.3  The operational model                                              5

4    NAME ASSIGNMENT                                                    5

5    DIRECTORY INFRASTRUCTURE                                           7
5.1  Short term requirements                                            7
5.2  Medium term requirements                                           9
5.3  Long term requirements                                             9

6    DATAMANAGEMENT                                                     9
6.1  Legal issues                                                       9

7    TECHNICAL ISSUES                                                  10
7.1  Schema                                                            10
7.2  Use on the Internet                                               11
7.3  Replication of Knowledge and Data                                 12
7.4  Presentation of Directory Names                                   12
7.5  DSA Naming and MD Structure                                       13

8    SECURITY                                                          13
8.1  Directory Provision of Authentication                             13
8.2  Directory Security                                                15

9    RELATION TO DNS                                                   16

10   EXTERNAL CONNECTIONS                                              16

11   REFERENCES                                                        17

12   AUTHORS' ADDRESSES                                                20

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 1

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993


There is substantial interest in establishing a new Directory Service on the
Internet. In the short term, there is pressure to establish two new

-  White Pages lookup of users;
-  Support for X.509 Authentication for a range of applications in
   particular for Privacy Enhanced mail [Lin89].

In the medium term there are likely to be many requirements for Directory
Services, including:

-  General resource lookup, for information ranging from committee
   structures to bibliographic data;
-  Support of management of the internet infrastructure, and integration of
   configuration information into the higher level directory;
-  Support of applications on the Internet. For example:
   o  Electronic distribution lists;
   o  Capability information on advanced user agents;
   o  Location of files and archive services.
-  Support for Mail Handling Systems; Be they RFC-822 based or X.400 based
   (IETF MHS-DS WG), e.g.:
   o  Support for routing;
   o  Info on User agent capabilities; essential for a usage of Multimedia
      mail like MIME.

For the longer term more sophisticated usages of X.500 are possible
extending it into a useful and fast yellow pages service.


In principle the current Internet Domain Name System could be used for many
of these functions, with appropriate extensions. However, it is suggested
that a higher level of directory service is needed. It is proposed to
establish an Internet Directory Service based on X.500. This provides
appropriate functionality for the services envisaged and gives flexibility
for future extension. This extension could be achieved either by tracking
the evolution of the OSI Standard or by work specific to the Internet. In
practice, it is likely to be a mixture of both.

By deploying X.500 in some form on the Internet, a truely global and
universal Directory Service can be build that will provide Internet users
with fast access to all kinds of data. The X.500 Directory Service in this
case may range from a simple white pages service (information on people and
services) to coupling various existing databases and information
repositories in a universal way.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 2

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

Currently several different but cooperating X.500 Directory Services pilots
are taking place on the Internet. These pilots form an important base for
experimenting with this new service. Starting with these pilots, with the
X.500 products arriving on the market today, and given sufficient funding
for the central services described in this paper an operational X.500
Directory Service can be deployed.

The final goal of the strategy described in this paper  is to deploy a fully
operational Directory Service on the Internet, providing the functions
mentioned in the previous section.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 3

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993


The most critical aspect of the Directory Service is to establish an
Internet Information Framework. When establishing a sophisticated
distributed directory with a coherent information framework, it involves
substantial effort to map data onto this framework. This effort is an
operational effort and far outweighs the technical effort of establishing
servers and user agents.

3.1   The technical model

By choosing the X.500 model as a basis for the information framework, it
will also be part of a (future) global information framework. The key
aspects of this model are:

-  A hierarchical navigational system that couples distributed databases (of
   various kinds), which allows for management of the data by the
   organization/person responsible for the data;
-  Each object in this information structure (called the Directory
   Information Tree , DIT) is represented as an entry;
-  Objects are typed by an "object class", which permits multiple
-  An object is described by a set of attributes;
-  Each attribute is typed. Attribute types are hierarchical;
-  Each attribute type has an associated attribute syntax, which may be
   generic or shared with other attributes (e.g. Integer Syntax;
   Distinguished name Syntax); This allows for representation of simple
   attributes (e.g. strings or bitmaps) or complex ones with detailed
-  Each entry has an unambiguous and unique global name;
-  Alternate hierarchies may be built by use of aliases or pointers of
   distinguished name syntax.

This framework allows for representation of basic objects such as users
within organizations. It is also highly extensible, and so can be used for
a range of other applications.

3.2   Extending the technical model

In the longer term the model could be extended to deal with a number of
other requirements which potentially must be met by an Internet Directory
Service. Possible extensions include:
-  Support of ordered attributes (needed by some applications such as
   message storage);
-  Extensions to allow unification with management information, associated
   with SNMP [CFSD90] or other management protocols;
-  Handling of non-hierarchical data in a better manner for searching and

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 4

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

 retrieval, whilst retaining the basic hierarchy for management purposes.
   This is essentially building a general purpose resource location service on
   top of the basic infrastructure. It will need work on the information model,
   and not just the access protocols.

It is noted that although X.500 may not provide the ultimate solution to
information retrieval, it has good potential for solving a lot of
information service related problems.

3.3   The operational model

To make the Directory Service with a coherent information framework really
operational requires a lot of effort. The most probable operational model
is one where larger organizations on the Internet maintain their part of the
DIT on their own DSA (Directory System Agent). Smaller organizations will
"rent" DSA space from regional networks or other service providers. Together
these DSAs will form the Internet Directory Service Infrastructure. To
couple the various parts of the DIT that are contained on these Internet
DSAs, a special DSA containing the Root for the naming hierarchy within the
DIT has to be established and maintained.

The following tasks can be foreseen:

-  Defining the naming hierarchy; See section 4.
-  Creating the Directory Infrastructure; See section 5.
-  Getting the Data into the directory; and
-  Managing the data in the Directory. See section 6.


In order to deploy the Internet Directory Service, it is important to define
how the naming hierarchy will be structured. Although the basic model
suggest a simple monolithic 'database' containing all of the Internet's
information infrastructure, with a namespace divided along geographic
boundaries, this may not be the definite model that turns out to be the most
appropriate to the Internet. Different models may evolve according to the
needs of the Internet and the applications used on the Internet. I.e. some
parts of the DIT may be assigned at the root for the Internet. Below this
one can envisage several loosely coupled namespaces each with their own area
of applicability. This should be handled as a part of the general operation
of a directory service. An example of this might be assignment of a
representation of the Domain Namespace under the root of the DIT. This is
further discussed in [BHK91a].

The core DIT information however will be nationally assigned. The parts of

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 5

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

 the DIT below country level will be managed differently in each country.
In many countries registration authorities will be established according to
the OSI Standard [ISO]. This has been done in some countries by the national
ISO member body representative (for example in the UK by BSI).

The lower parts of the hierarchy will in general be delegated to
organizations who will have control over Name Assignment in that part of the
tree. There is no reason to mandate how to assign this hierarchy, although
it is appropriate to give guidelines. Proposed solutions to assignment of
namespace are given in [BHK92].

In North America there is an alternative approach being developed by the
North American Directory Forum (NADF), which leverages existing registration
mechanisms [For91]. It is not clear yet what form a final North American
Directory Service will take. It is expected that similar initiatives will
be taken in other places, such as Europe. For the Internet the Internet
Society has been suggested as a possible Naming Authority.

A discussion of the main issues involved with representing the Real World
in the Directory Service is part of the work undertaken by the IETF OSI DS
Working Group.

The core of the Internet Directory will therefore come to exist of a country
based structure with different national naming schemes below the countries.
It is clearly desirable that the Internet Directory Service follows any
evolving national and international hierarchies. However, this should not
be allowed to cause undue delay. The strategy proposed is to proceed with
name assignment as needed, and to establish interim registration authorities
where necessary, taking practical steps to be aligned with emerging national
authorities wherever possible.

It is suggested that the Internet Directory Service does two things:

First, each national part of the Internet DIT namespace should be delegated
to an appropriate organization, which will usually be in the country of
Second, the delegated organization should assign names for that country as
part of the Internet Directory Service. This should be done in a manner
which is appropriately aligned with any emerging local or national service,
but does not unduly delay the deployment of the Internet Directory Service.
For most countries, this will fit in as a natural evolution of the early
directory piloting, where operators of pilots have acted as interim name
registration authorities.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 6

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993


To provide access to the Internet Directory Service an infrastructure has
to be build. Although the technical components of an X.500 infrastructure
are clear: DSAs (that hold the actual data) and DUAs (that allow users and
applications to access the data), a lot more is needed for deployment of an
Internet Directory Service.
The DISI (Directory Information Services Infrastructure) WG of the IETF is
playing a key role in solving most of the issues that are related to the
building of an appropriate infrastructure.

Many of the issues cited in this section have come forward out of interim
pilots that have been established on the Internet:

PSI White Pages Pilot
   This is a pilot service which is operating X.500 on the Internet. In many
   ways it is operating as an Internet wide pilot.

   Fielding Operational X.500, a project to explore the development and
   interoperability of X.500 implementations.

Paradise (Piloting A ReseArch DIrectory Service in Europe)
   This project has been providing the necessary glue to hold the various
   national activities together [Par91].

5.1   Short term requirements

-  Central Operations. There is a need for a number of operations to be
   managed as a service for the whole internet. These services are:
   o  A root DSA; containing the top-level of the DIT, has to be provided.
      Currently this root DSA is managed by the Paradise project.
   o  Name assignment; Inserting names into the Directory, this has been
      discussed in section 4. This could be done in conjunction with the
      appropriate Registration Authority or by the Registration Authority.
      In most cases it is likely to be the former, and mechanisms will need
      to be set up to allow organizations to get their names installed into
      the directory, either direct or through the registration authority.
   o  Knowledge management; i.e. the information on "which DSA holds what
      part of the DIT, and how can that DSA be accessed". DSAs will be
      established by Organizations. There will be a need to centrally
      coordinate the management of the knowledge information associated
      with these DSAs. This is likely to be coupled to the name assignment.
   o  Knowledge and Data replication; For the Directory to perform well,
      knowledge and data high up in the DIT must be significantly
      replicated. A service must be provided to make replicated information
      available to DSAs that need it.
   It is suggested that for the time being Paradise should be used as the

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 7

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

   initial basis for handling the top-level of the DIT and for provision of
   the central services. However the services mentioned above need to be
   provided at a national level for every participating country in the Internet
   Directory Service. Whenever an organization starts a new country branch of
   the DIT in the Internet Directory Service the central operations will have
   to help out to make sure that these services will be properly installed on
   a national level.

-  An effective service will need to have sufficient implementations, in
   order to give full coverage over different hardware and software
   platforms, and to demonstrate openness. The recent DISI Survey of
   Directory Implementation suggests that there will not be a problem here.
   This provides a list of available X.500 implementations and their
   capabilities [LW91].

-  An executive summary, necessary to convince the management of computer
   centers to invest manpower into setting up a X.500 Directory Service.
   This is provided by DISI [WR92].

-  Due to the possible different and rather independent structured
   namespaces that can be envisaged in the DIT for different purposes, DUAs
   will have to be "tuned intelligently" for the applications that they are
   used for.

-  To allow users easy access to the Internet Directory Service even from
   low powered workstations a lightweight protocol has to be developed over
   TCP/IP. Already two private protocols that do this have been developed:
   The Michigan DIXIE protocol [HSB91] and the PSI Directory Assistance
   Service [Ros91]. The IETF OSI-DS group is currently working on a standard
   lightweight protocol called LDAP.

-  Although the Internet Directory Service does not have to make any
   mandatory requirements about the use of lower layers, it is noted that
   the use of RFC1006 to allow use of OSI applications on top of TCP/IP is
   essential for deployment in the Internet. Other stacks like the ones
   using CLNS, CONS and X.25(80) will probably also be deployed in parts of
   the Internet. DSA with different stacks will be linked through use of
   either application level relays (chaining) or Transport Service bridges.

-  There are multiple issues that are not dealt with (properly) in the X.500
   standard and thus prevent the building of an Internet Directory service.
   Intermediate solutions for these issues have to be established in an
   "open" way. The results will have to be deployed as well as to be fed
   back into the relevant standard committees. The IETF OSI-DS WG deals with
   these issues. Section 7 describes several of these issues.

-  Site support. DISI WG is looking at providing the necessary documentation
   to help with the provision of support for Directory users at
   participating sites.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 8

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

5.2   Medium term requirements

-  Enhanced performance is necessary to allow for a real global usage;

-  The schema has to be extended to allow for various kinds of data, e.g.:
   o  Nic data;
   o  Resource location;

-  Support for Internet Message Handling services (RFC-822, MIME and X.400).
   This work is already undertaken by the IETF MHS-DS group.

5.3   Long term requirements

-  To make sure that X.500 evolves into an operational service it is
   essential to track its evolution, and to feed back into the evolution

-  Interface existing RDBMS into the Directory Service.

-  To increase the performance of the directory, and thereby making it
   useful for an even wider range of applications (e.g. policy based
   routing) a lightweight protocol for access and system usage is needed.


The whole of the Directory Infrastructure wont stand much chance without
proper datamanagement of the data contained within the DIT. Procedures need
to be established to assure a certain Level of Quality of the data contained
in the DIT.

Due to the very nature of X.500 the management of the data is distributed
over various sources. This has the obvious advantage that the data will be
maintained by the owner of the data. It does however make it quite
impossible to describe one single procedure for datamanagement.

For the Internet Directory Service guidelines will have to be developed (by
the DISI WG), to help organizations that start with deployment of X.500 on
how to manage data in their part of the DIT. The guidelines should describe
a minimum level of quality that has to be supplied to make the service
operational. Quality Of Service (QOS) parameters as defined in [BHK91b] will
be of use.

Pilot datamanagement projects will have to be done in which e.g. existing
databases should be connected to the Internet Directory Service. Tools that
are developed to achieve this should be made available to the Internet

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                            page 9

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

 community for possible future use.

6.1   Legal issues

Most countries connected to the Internet have some sort of law that dictates
how data on people can and cannot be made available. These laws deal with
privacy and registration issues, and will differ from country to country.
It is suggested that each of the national organizations within the Internet
that manages the Internet Directory Services master for that country,
undertakes some research as to the applicability of laws within that country
on data made public through use of X.500.

In the mean time a general "User bill of rights" should be established to
indicate what the proper use of the Internet Directory Service is. This
"bill of rights" could be drafted by the DISI WG, as a basis the NADF "User
bill of rights" [For92] can be used.


The IETF has established a Working Group on OSI Directory Services (OSI-DS).
A major component of the initial work of this group is to establish a
technical framework for deploying a Directory Service on the Internet,
making use of the X.500 protocols and services [CCI88b]. This section
describes the work already done by this WG, which has bee implicitly focused
the technical infrastructure needed to deploy the Internet Directory

The OSI Directory Standards do not yet contain sufficient specifity to
enable the Internet Directory Service to be built. Full openness and
interoperability are a key goal, so we may need Internet specific
agreements, at least until the ISO standards are more complete. This section
notes areas where the standards do not have sufficient coverage, and
indicates the RFCs which have been written to overcome these problems.

The work is being limited to (reasonably well) understood issues. This means
that whilst we will attempt to solve a wider range of problems that not all
potential requirements will necessarily be met.

The technical work is done in conjunction with the RARE WG on Network
Application Support WG (formerly RARE WG3). The IETF WG and the RARE WG have
a common technical mailing list. It is intended that this will lead to a
common European and North American technical approach.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 10

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

7.1   Schema

A Directory needs to be used in the context of an Information Framework. The
standard directory provides a number of a attributes and object classes to
enable basic operation. It is certain that the Internet Community will have
requirements for additional attributes and object classes. There is a need
to establish a mechanism to register such information.

Pilots in the European RARE Community and the US PSI White Pages Pilot have
based their information framework on the THORN and RARE Naming Architecture
. This architecture should be used  for the Internet Directory Service,  in
conjunction with COSINE based services in Europe. A revised version of the
Naming Architecture, with a mechanism for registration of new attributes and
object classes, has been released as RFC 1274 [BHK91a].

7.2   Use on the Internet

It is a recognized policy on the Internet to deploy OSI Applications over
non-OSI lower layers (such as RFC 1006) [RC87]. This policy allows
deployment of OSI Applications before an OSI lower layer infrastructure has
been deployed. Thus, the Internet Directory Service will decouple deployment
of the OSI Directory from deployment of the OSI lower layers. As the
Internet Directory service will extend into the far corners of the Internet
namespace, where the underlying technology is not always TCP/IP, the
Internet Directory Service will not make any mandatory requirements about
use of lower layers. When configuring the Internet Directory Services,
variations in the lower layers must be considered. The following options are

-  Operation on top of TCP/IP using a lightweight protocol.

-  Operation over TCP/IP using RFC 1006. This is a practical requirement of
   deployment at very many Internet sites, and is the basis of the existing
   services. It is highly recommended that all participating DSAs support
   this stack.

-  Use of OSI Network Service (Connection Oriented or Connectionless).

-  X.25(80) will probably not be used in the core infrastructure of the
   Internet Directory Service, but is the basis of some European activities.
   It may be needed later to interconnect with US commercial systems not on
   the Internet. There will be a practical need to interwork with DSAs which
   only support this stack.

This approach has the following implications.

1  There is a need to represent TCP/IP addresses within OSI Network
   Addresses. This is specified in RFC 1277 [HK91a].

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 11

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

2  It will be desirable to have a uniform method to present Network
   Addresses of this style. Therefore a string representation of
   presentation addresses is specified in RFC 1278 [HK91d].

3  This approach leads to the situation where not all DSAs can communicate
   directly due the different choice of lower layers. This is already a
   practical result of many European sites operating DSAs over X.25.  When
   the Internet Directory Service  is deployed, the issue of which DSAs
   operate which stacks must be considered in order to achieve a coherent
   service.  In particular there may be a need to require DSAs that serve
   parts higher up in the DIT to serve multiple stacks. This will be tackled
   as an operational issue.
4  There may be a requirement to extend the distributed operations, so that
   there is no requirement for full connectivity (i.e. each DSA supports
   each stack). A solution to this problem,  by defining "relay DSAs" is
   specified in RFC 1276 [HK91b].

7.3   Replication of Knowledge and Data

There are a number of requirements on replication, both of data (the actual
information on objects in the directory) and knowledge (the information on
where do I find what data) information, which must be met before an Internet
Directory can be deployed. The 1988 standard cannot be used as is, because
it does not deal with replication or caching. This leads to serious problems
a.o. with performance. There is a partial solution available in the 1992
version of the standard, however there are no products available yet that
implement this solution.
These issues are discussed in more detail in RFC 1275 [HK91c].

As it took too long for 1992 implementations to arrive to be of any help to
the already rapidly growing pilot, that urgently needed a solution, an
option was chosen to use a simple interim approach as defined in RFC 1276.
It will be clearly emphasized that this is an interim approach, which will
be phased out as soon as the appropriate standards are available and stable
implementations are deployed. The interim approach is based on the approach
used in the QUIPU Implementation and it is widely deployed in the existing
pilots. The approach is specified in RFC 1276 [HK91b].

7.4   Presentation of Directory Names

 The standard does not specify a means to present directory names to the
user. This is seen as a serious deficiency, and a standard for presenting
directory names is required. For Distinguished names a string representation
is defined in [HK92a]. However as the distinguished name is not very
friendly for the user a more user oriented specification of a standard
format for representing names, and procedures to resolve them is chosen on
the Internet, and is specified in [HK92b]

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 12

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

7.5   DSA Naming and MD Structure

There are some critical issues related to naming of DSAs and the structure
of Directory Management Domains. The main issues are:

-  It is hard to achieve very high replication of knowledge information as
   this is very widely spread;
-  There is a need to give DSAs more reasonable names, which will contain
   an indication on the role of the DSA; This is necessary for DSAs high up
   the DIT.
-  There is too much DIT clutter in the current pilots;
-  There is no real concept of a DMD (Directory Management Domain)

These will be significant as the directory increases in size by orders of
magnitude. The OSI-DS WG is working to develop a solution in this area


==> This section still needs a thorough review.

A Directory and Security are closely related. The directory is a provider
of authentication information, which is in turn usable as the basis for a
number of OSI Authentication Services (e.g., X.400) and non-OSI Services
(e.g., PEM). The directory can also use these services as the basis of a
number of security features. The directory provision of authentication
information does not depend on any of these features.

8.1   Directory Provision of Authentication

The directory will be used to provide X.509 strong authentication . This
places minimal requirements on the directory. To use this infrastructure,
users of authentication services must have access to the directory. In
practice, this type of authentication can only be deployed on a limited
scale without use of a directory, and so this provision is critical for
applications such as Privacy Enhanced Mail [Lin89]. The PEM development is
considering issues relating to deploying Certification Authorities, and this
discussion is not duplicated here.

PEM defines a key management architecture based on the use of public-key
certificates, in support of the message encipherment and authentication
procedures defined in RFC-1113. In the proposed architecture, a
"certification authority" representing an organization applies a digital

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 13

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

 signature to a collection of data consisting of a user's public component,
various information that serves to identify the user, and the identity of
the organization whose signature is affixed. This establishes a binding
between these user credentials, the user's public component and the
organization which vouches for this binding.  The resulting signed, data
item is called a certificate.  The organization identified as the certifying
authority for the certificate is the "issuer" of that certificate.

In signing the certificate, the certification authority vouches for the
user's identification, especially as it relates to the user's affiliation
with the organization.  The digital signature is affixed on behalf of that
organization and is in a form which can be recognized by all members of the
privacy-enhanced electronic mail community. Once generated, certificates can
be stored in directory servers, transmitted via unsecure message exchanges,
or distributed via any other means that make certificates easily accessible
to message originators, without regard for the security of the transmission

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 14

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

 8.2  Directory Security

 A number of security services are possible with the directory:

 Peer Authentication
   Authentication (one or two way) between
   DUA/DSA and DSA/DSA. This is specified in X.500(88).
Per-operation authentication
   This is usually used to identify the DUA originating an operation to the
   Directory (e.g., to authenticate prior to data modification). It may also
   be used to verify the DSA which provided data back to the user. This is
   specified in X.500(88).
Single Entry Access Control
   This is used to control which users (DUAs) can access and modify data
   within an entry. This is specified in X.500(92) and most DSA
   implementations provide this function.
Multiple Entry Access Control
   This is used to control search and list operations, in order to allow
   location of information by searching, but to prevent trawling of
   information and organizational structure.
   This allows DSAs to control service in a data
   independent manner, based on peer authentication. This might be
   used to prevent students from making non-local queries.
Security Policy
   This relates access control, authorization, and authentication, and
   possibly other local considerations. For example, it might be required
   that all modifications have strong authentication and are from a machine
   at a known location.
Data Confidentiality
   Preventing eavesdropping of data as it is transferred.

Initially, there will be no  specification of any Internet security for
directory. Deployment of a directory could be based on one of:

-  Read only system, containing only public data and using local
-  Use of X.509 authentication, and private access control mechanisms
   (this will not allow open access control management, but this is not
   seen as a fundamental problem) .

It will be important to understand security requirements, and so an RFC
should be written to evaluate this.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 15

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993


It is important to establish the relationship between the proposed Internet
Directory, and the existing Domain Name System. An experimental RFC (RFC
1279) proposes a mapping of DNS information onto the Directory. Experiments
should be conducted in this area [HK91e].


It will be important for this activity to maintain suitable external
liaisons. In particular to:

Other Directory Services and Directory Pilots

To ensure a service which is coherent with other groups building X.500
services. E.g.:

-  Paradise
-  FOX
-  PSI White Pages

Standards Bodies

To feed back experience gained from this activity, so that the next round
of standards meets as many of the Internet requirements as possible. E.g.:


Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 16

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993


[BHK91a]  P. Barker and S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. The COSINE and Internet
          X.500 schema. Request for Comments RFC 1274, Department of
          Computer Science, University College London, November 1991.

[BHK91b]  P. Barker and S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. Handling qos (quality of
          service) in the directory, Department of Computer Science,
          University College London. Internet Draft: draft-ietf-osids-
          dirpilots-01.txt,.ps, August 1991.

[BHK92]   P. Barker and S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. Naming guidelines for
          Directory pilots, Department of Computer Science, University
          College London. Internet Draft: draft-ietf-osids-namingguid-
          03.txt,.ps, January 1992.

[CCI88a]  The Directory --- authentication framework, December 1988. CCITT
          Recommendation X.509.

[CCI88b]  The Directory --- overview of concepts, models and services,
          December 1988. CCITT X.500 Series Recommendations.

[CCI90]   The Directory --- part 9 --- replication, October 1990. ISO/IEC
          CD 9594-9 Ottawa output.

[CFSD90]  J.D. Case, M.S. Fedor, M.L. Schoffstall, and J.R. Davin. A Simple
          Network Management Protocol. Request for Comments 1157, DDN
          Network Information Center, SRI International, May 1990.

[For91]   The North American Directory Forum. A Naming Scheme for C=US.
          Request for Comments 1255, September 1991. Also NADF-175.

[For92]   The North American directory Forum. User bill of rights for
          entries and listing in the public directory. RFC 1295, January

[HK91a]   S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. Encoding network addresses to support
          operation over non-OSI lower layers. Request for Comments RFC
          1277, Department of Computer Science, University College London,
          November 1991.

[HK91b]   S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. Replication and distributed operations
          extensions to provide an internet directory using X.500. Request
          for Comments RFC 1276, Department of Computer Science, University
          College London, November 1991.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 17

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

[HK91c]   S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. Replication requirement to provide an
          internet directory using X.500. Request for Comments RFC 1275,
          Department of Computer Science, University College London,
          November 1991.

[HK91d]   S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. A string encoding of presentation address.
          Request for Comments RFC 1278, Department of Computer Science,
          University College London, November 1991.

[HK91e]   S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. X.500 and domains. Request for Comments
          RFC 1279, Department of Computer Science, University College
          London, November 1991.

[HK91f]   S.E. Kille. Dsa naming, Department of Computer Science,
          University College London. Internet Draft: draft-ietf-osids-
          dsanaming-02.txt,.ps, January 1992.

[HK92a]   S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. A string representation of Distinguished
          Names, Department of Computer Science, University College London.
          Internet Draft: draft-ietf-osids-distnames-02.txt,.ps, April

[HK92b]   S.E. Hardcastle-Kille. Using the OSI directory to achieve user
          friendly naming, Department of Computer Science, University
          College London. Internet Draft: draft-ietf-osids-friendlynaming-
          03.txt,.ps, January 1992.

[HSB91]   T. Howes, M. Smith, and B. Beecher. DIXIE Protocol Specification
          . Request for Comments 1249, University of Michigan, July 1991.

[ISO]     Procedures for the operation of OSI registration authorities ---
          part 1: general procedures. ISO/IEC 9834-1.

[Kil88]   S.E. Kille. The QUIPU directory service. In IFIP WG 6.5
          Conference on Message Handling Systems and Distributed
          Applications, pages 173--186. North Holland Publishing, October

[Kil89]   S.E. Kille. The THORN and RARE naming architecture. Technical
          report, Department of Computer Science, University College
          London, June 1989. THORN Report UCL-64 (version 2).

[Lin89]   RFC-1113 J. Linn. Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic
          Mail: Part 1 --- Message Encipherment and Authentication
          Procedures. Request for Comments 1113, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman,
          August 1989.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 18

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993

[LW91]    R. Lang and R. Wright. A catalog of available x.500
          implementations, RFC 1292, december 1991.

[Lyn91]   C.A. Lynch. The Z39.50 information retrieval protocol: An
          overview and status report. Computer Communication Review,
          21(1):58--70, January 1991.

[Par91]   Paradise International Report, Cosine. Paradise project,
          Department of Computer Science, University College London.
          November 1991.

[RC87]    Marshall T. Rose and Dwight E. Cass. ISO Transport Services on
          top of the TCP. Request for Comments 1006, Northrop Corporation
          Technology Center, May 1987.

[Ros91]   M.T. Rose. Directory Assistance Service . Request for Comments
          1202, Performance Systems International, SRI International,
          February 1991.

[WR92]    C. Weider, J.K. Reynolds. Executive Introduction to directory
          services using the X.500 protocol. RFC 1308, March 1992.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 19

INTERNET-DRAFT                             Expiration date: 19 april 1993


Steve Hardcastle-Kille
ISODE Consortium
PO box 505
SW11 1DX  London
Phone: +44-71-223-4062
EMail: S.Kille@isode.com

Erik Huizer
SURFnet bv
PO box 19035
3501 DA Utrecht
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-30 310290
Email: Erik.Huizer@SURFnet.nl

Vinton Cerf
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
Phone: (703) 620-8990
EMail: vcerf@nri.reston.va.us

Russ Hobby
University of California, Davis
Computing Services
Surge II Room 1400
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: (916) 752-0236
EMail: rdhobby@ucdavis.edu

Steve Kent
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman
Phone: (617) 873-3988
EMail: skent@bbn.com

Jon Postel
Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 10001
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Phone: (213)-822-1511
EMail: postel@venera.isi.edu

      The expiration date of this internet draft is 19 april 1993.

Hardcastle-kille et al.                                           page 20

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/