rfc1255.txt

来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 1,403 行 · 第 1/4 页

      St. James Infirmary

   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 } }


           (3)   local-listing:

                   { c=US, st=California, l=*,
                           { o=St. James Infirmary, fips55=49670 } }

          Further, in some state other than California, this
          organization might also list as:

           (1)   regional-listing:

                   { c=US, st=*,
                           { o=St. James Infirmary, st=California,
                             fips55=49670 } }


           (2)   local-listing:

                   { c=US, st=*, l=*,
                           { o=St. James Infirmary, st=California,
                             fips55=49670 } }

7.4.  Organizations with Foreign-Standing

   Suppose that the five-star restaurant

      Erik's Fisk

   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:

       (1)   national-listing:

               { c=US,
                       { cn=Marshall T. Rose, postalCode=94043-2112,
                         st=California, fips55=49670 } }


       (2)   regional-listing:

               { c=US, st=California,
                       { cn=Marshall T. Rose, postalCode=94043-2112,
                         fips55=49670 } }


       (3)   local-listing:

               { c=US, st=California, l=Santa Clara,
                       { cn=Marshall T. Rose, postalCode=94043-2112 } }

      Further, in some state other than California, this person
      might also list as:

       (1)   regional-listing:

               { c=US, st=*,
                       { cn=Marshall T. Rose, postalCode=94043-2112,
                         st=California, fips55=49670 } }



NADF                                                           [Page 21]

RFC 1255                A Naming Scheme for c=US          September 1991


       (2)   local-listing:

               { c=US, st=*, l=*,
                       { cn=Marshall T. Rose, postalCode=94043-2112,
                         st=California, fips55=49670 } }

8.  Bibliography

          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

   Tel: [phone]






































NADF                                                           [Page 25]