Integrated Directory Services (ids)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of that in effect at the time of the 38th IETF Meeting in Memphis, Tennessee. It may now be out-of-date.

Chair(s): 

Linda Millington <Linda.Millington@cdc.com>
Sri Sataluri <sri@qsun.att.com>

Applications Area Director(s): 

Keith Moore <moore+iesg@cs.utk.edu>
Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>

Area Advisor: 

Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>

Mailing Lists: 

General Discussion:ietf-ids@umich.edu
To Subscribe: ietf-ids-request@umich.edu
Archive: ftp://terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu/ietf-ids/archive

Description of Working Group: 

The Integrated Directory Services (IDS) Working Group is chartered to facilitate the integration and interoperability of current and future directories into a unified Internet directory service. This work will unite directories based on a heterogeneous set of directory services protocols (X.500, WHOIS++, etc.). 

In addition to specifying technical requirements for the integration, the IDS Working Group will also contribute to the administrative and maintenance issues of directory service offerings by publishing guidelines on directory data integrity, maintenance, security, and privacy and legal issues for users and administrators of directories. 

The IDS Working Group will pay special attention to the creation of an Internet White Pages Directory Service and will sponsor and track projects to achieve this goal and specifically take steps to facilitate wide-spread experimentation of the protocols evolving in the ASID Working Group. 

The IDS Working Group will work on applications of directory technology and will track ongoing applications projects. The IDS Working Group will assume responsibility for the creation and maintenance of on-line catalogs of directory services implementations. These catalogs will be periodically published as Informational RFCs. 

The IDS Working Group will take up the unfinished tasks of the WHIP - White Pages Requirements Working Group - that was constituted at the Seattle IETF. The WHIP Working Group set out to define the basic requirements for a Simple Internet White Pages Service. 

The IDS Working Group will liaise with the groups working on development and deployment of the various directory service protocols. 

The IDS Working Group is a combined effort of the Applications Area and the User Services Area of the IETF. 

Ongoing Activities:

·   Track emerging directory service protocols in order to identify the need for specifying standards for interworking with other service protocols 
·   Liaise with groups working on deployment and development of directory services to locate and fix interoperability problems. 
·   Identify unfilled needs of directory service offerers, administrators, and users.

· Catalogs maintained on-line, with occasional publication as RFCs:

RFC due On-line version Name :
Dec 95 Jun 95 A Catalog of WHOIS++ Implementations. -- Patrick Faltstrom (first issue) Dec 95 Jul 95 The On-line X.500 Directory Implementations Catalog (on-line version of RFC 1632). -- Chris Apple and Ken Rossen

Pilot Projects reporting to this group:

The Long Bud Project -- Internet Pilot Project for the Deployment of X.500 Directory Information in Support of X.400 Routing (RFC 1802) Coordinator: Kevin Jordan Lifetime: Jan 94 - Dec 96 
The Internet Nomenclator Project Coordinator: Joann Ordille Lifetime: Jun 95 - Jun 97 
The Internet Whois++ Project Coordinator: Patrick Faltstrom Lifetime: Jun 95 - Jun 97 
The Internet X.500 (1993) Directory Project Coordinator: Vincent Berkhout Lifetime:  Dec 95 - Dec 97 
The Schema Registry project - identifying and publishing X.500 schema elements used on the Internet Coordinator: Sri Sataluri Lifetime: November 94 - Nov 96
Goals and Milestones:

Jul 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``Building a Directory in the US''.

Sep 95 



Submit to the IESG, ``Requirements for an Internet White Pages Services'' as a ... TBD ... document.

Oct 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``Procedures for Formalizing, Evolving, and Maintaining the Internet X.500 Directory Schema''.

Oct 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``User Requirements for a Simple Internet White Pages Service''.

Oct 95 



Submit to the IESG, ``Procedures for Formalizing, Evolving, and Maintaining the Internet X.500 Directory Schema'' as a BCP Document.

Oct 95 



Submit to the IESG, ``Building a Directory in the US'' for consideration as an Informational RFC.

Nov 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``The Internet Nomenclator Project'' with the goal of publishing it as an Experimental RFC.

Nov 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``The CCSO Directory Services'' with the goal of publishing it as an Informational RFC.

Nov 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``Schema Requirements for a Simple Internet White Pages Service''.

Nov 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, the 1995 revision of FYI 11 ``A Revised Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations''.

Nov 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``Catalog of available WHOIS++ implementations''.

Nov 95 



Submit as and Internet-Draft ``The CCSO to X.500 Directory Services Gateway'' with the goal of publishing it as ... TBD.

Dec 95 



Submit to the IESG, the 1995 revision of FYI 21 ``A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500'' for publication as an Informational RFC.

Dec 95 



Submit to the IESG, ``A Catalog of available WHOIS++ Implementations'' for publication as an Informational RFC.

Dec 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``The Core Internet X.500 Schema'', (long overdue successor to RFC1274) with the goal of publishing it as a ... TBD.

Dec 95 



Submit as an Internet-Draft, ``Evaluation of X.500 Directory with respect to WHIP's Requirements Document''.

Dec 95 



Submit to the IESG, the 1995 revision of FYI 11 ``A Revised Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations''.

Internet-Drafts: 

· Introducing a Directory Service 

· A Common Schema for the Internet White Pages Service 

· The CCSO Nameserver (Ph) Architecture 

· X.500 Implementations Catalog-96 

· Best Current Practice for the Internet White Pages Service 

· Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services 

· Internet Nomenclator Project 

· Naming Plan for an Internet Directory Service

Request For Comments:

RFC 

Status 

Title

RFC1491 

A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500

RFC1632 

A Revised Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations

RFC1803 

Recommendations for an X.500 Production Directory Service

RFC1943 

Building an X.500 Directory Service in the US

RFC2120 

Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context

Current Meeting Report

Minutes of the Integrated Directory Services (IDS) Working Group 

Reported by: Linda MillingtonI. Liaison Reports

The liaison reports will be posted directly to the mailing list. Barbara Jennings will forward details about the EMA Directory Challenge to the list.

I. Documents Status

Managing the X.500 Root Naming context has been published as RFC 2120 (Experimental).
Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services will be submitted to the next IESG meeting as a BCP.
A Common Schema for the Internet White Pages Service will be updated then submitted to the IESG as Proposed Standard.
The X.500 Catalog is currently progressing as informational.
Best Current Practice for the Internet White Pages Service received very little comment during Last Call and will be submitted to the IESG as a BCP.
II. Work Items Outstanding 

The two Nomenclator Drafts will be updated and published as Informational. Progress on the PH Architecture Draft is sought in the near future or this item will be dropped from the work list.

III. Naming Plan for an Internet Directory Service 

The Approach for Using Domains in LDAP Distinguished Names and the Naming Plan for an Internet Directory Service Drafts were merged and distributed to the mailing list as agreed in San Jose. The Group discussed this Draft and recommended that the following changes be made in order to make the intent clear. The future intent is to forward this as Proposed Standard.

Crisper requirements are needed 
Problems being solved need to be clarified
Minimum criteria necessary to comply with this scheme must be defined
Wording needs to be tightened up on the implied finding of LDAP servers
There was also discussion on which properties of DNs should we depend on with them currently being used for uniqueness, search constraint bases and actual information held in the entries. Further discussion on this topic will continue on the mailing list. 

Migration to and implementation of this naming scheme belong in a separate draft and it was suggested that the WHOIS++ deployment experience should be heeded and operational experience (12 months + at least) should be sought before finalizing the scheme. 

Slides

None Received Attendees List

Attendees List

TOC