doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1403 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1255.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1255.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a40c30f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1255.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1403 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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.
+
+4.5.  Summary of Structuring Objects
+
+   To summarize the naming architecture thus far:
+
++---------------+-----+---------------------+-----+--------------------+
+|      Level    |Elem |     objectClass     |Supr |        RDN         |
++---------------+-----+---------------------+-----+--------------------+
+|          root |  0  |                     |     |                    |
++---------------+-----+---------------------+-----+--------------------+
+| international |  1  | country             |  0  | countryName        |
++---------------+-----+---------------------+-----+--------------------+
+|      national |  2  | usStateOrEquivalent |  1  | stateOrProvinceName|
+|               |  3  | nadfADDMD           |  1  | addmdName          |
++---------------+-----+---------------------+-----+--------------------+
+|      regional |  4  | usCountyOrEquivalent|  2  | localityName       |
++---------------+-----+---------------------+-----+--------------------+
+|         local |  5  | ...                 |  4  | ...                |
++---------------+-----+---------------------+-----+--------------------+
+
+          Or, in pictorial form:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+NADF                                                           [Page 11]
+
+RFC 1255                A Naming Scheme for c=US          September 1991
+
+
+                                                  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:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+NADF                                                           [Page 15]
+
+RFC 1255                A Naming Scheme for c=US          September 1991
+
+
++----------------+-----+----------------------+----------+-------------+
+|      Level     |Elem |     objectClass      |  Super   |        RDN  |
++----------------+-----+----------------------+----------+-------------+
+|        listing | 11  | organization         |   1,2,4  |             |
++----------------+-----+----------------------+----------+-------------+
+| organizational | 12  | organizationalUnit   | 11,12,13 | orgUnitName |
+|                | 13  | locality             | 11,12,13 | localityName|
+|                | 14  | organizationalRole   | 11,12,13 | commonName  |
+|                | 15  | organizationalPerson | 11,12,13 | commonName  |
++----------------+-----+----------------------+----------+-------------+
+|    application | 16  | applicationProcess   | 11,12,13 | commonName  |
+|                | 17  | nadfApplicationEntity|    16    | commonName  |
+|                | 18  | groupOfNames         | 11,12,13 | commonName  |
+|                | 19  | ediUser              | 11,12,13 | ediName     |
+|                | 20  | device               | 11,12,13 | commonName  |
++----------------+-----+----------------------+----------+-------------+
+
+          Or, in pictorial form:
+
+          (------------)
+          (organization)
+          (------------)
+                |
+                |<------------------------------+
+                |                               |
+                +--->(organizationalUnit)-------+
+                |                               |
+                +--->(locality)-----------------+
+                |
+                +--->(organizationalRole)
+                |
+                +--->(organizationalPerson)
+                |
+                +--->(applicationProcess)--->(nadfApplicationEntity)
+                |
+                +--->(groupOfNames)
+                |
+                +--->(ediUser)
+                |
+                +--->(device)
+
+
+6.2.  Persons
+
+   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:
+
+                              +----------------------------------------+
+          +-------------------|        Listing (RDN) under             |
+          |      Entity       |  c=US   | c=US, st=X | c=US, st=X, l=Y |
+          +-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
+          |       residential | cn, ... | cn, ...    | cn, ..., fips55 |
+          |            person | st=X    | fips55     |                 |
+          |                   | fips55  |            |                 |
+          +-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
+          | .. (other region) |         | cn, ...    | cn, ..., st=Z   |
+          |                   |         | st=Z       | fips55          |
+          |                   |         | fips55     |                 |
+          +-------------------+---------+------------+-----------------+
+
+          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:
+
+       (1)   national-listing:
+
+               { c=US,
+
+
+
+NADF                                                           [Page 17]
+
+RFC 1255                A Naming Scheme for c=US          September 1991
+
+
+                       o=Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory }
+
+
+       (2)   regional-listing:
+
+               { c=US, st=*,
+                       { o=Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
+                         c=US } }
+
+
+       (3)   local-listing:
+
+               { c=US, st=*, l=*,
+                       { o=Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
+                         c=US } }
+
+   Suppose that the organization
+
+      Performance Systems International, Inc.
+
+   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:
+
+        (1)   national-listing:
+
+                { c=US, o=Performance Systems International }
+
+
+        (2)   regional-listing:
+                 { c=US, st=*,
+                        { o=Performance Systems International, c=US } }
+
+
+        (3)   local-listing:
+
+                 { c=US, st=*, l=*,
+                        { o=Performance Systems International, c=US } }
+
+7.2.  Organizations with Regional-Standing
+
+   Suppose that the organization
+
+      Network Management Associates, Inc.
+
+   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
+
+
+
+NADF                                                           [Page 18]
+
+RFC 1255                A Naming Scheme for c=US          September 1991
+
+
+   (or all) of these names:
+
+           (1)   national-listing:
+
+                   { c=US,
+                           { o=Network Management Associates,
+                             st=California } }
+
+
+           (2)   regional-listing:
+
+                   { c=US, st=California,
+                           o=Network Management Associates }
+
+
+           (3)   local-listing:
+
+                   { c=US, st=California, l=*,
+                           o=Network Management Associates }
+
+          Further, in some state other than California, this
+          organization might also list as:
+
+           (1)   regional-listing:
+
+                   { c=US, st=*,
+                           { o=Network Management Associates,
+                             st=California } }
+
+
+           (2)   local-listing:
+
+                   { c=US, st=*, l=*,
+                           { o=Network Management Associates,
+                             st=California } }
+
+7.3.  Organizations with Local-Standing
+
+   Suppose that the tavern and eatery
+
+      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: +1 202-342-2727
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+NADF                                                           [Page 25]
+
\ No newline at end of file