Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 3254

Definitions for talking about directories

Pages: 11

ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                      H. Alvestrand
Request for Comments: 3254                                 Cisco Systems
Category: Informational                                       April 2002

               Definitions for talking about directories

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.


When discussing systems for making information accessible through the Internet in standardized ways, it may be useful if the people who are discussing it have a common understanding of the terms they use. For example, a reference to this document would give one the power to agree that the DNS (Domain Name System) is a global lookup repository with perimeter integrity and loose, converging consistency. On the other hand, a LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) directory server is a local, centralized repository with both lookup and search capability. This document discusses one group of such systems which is known under the term, "directories".

1. Introduction and basic terms

We suggest using the following terms for the remainder of this document: - Information: Facts and ideas which can be represented (encoded) as data in various forms. - Data: Information in a specific physical representation, usually a sequence of symbols that have meaning; especially a representation of information that can be processed or produced by a computer. (From [SEC].) - Repository: An amount of data that is accessible through one or more access methods.
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 2
   -  Requester: Entity that may (try to) access data in a repository.
      Note that no assumption is made that the requester is animal,
      vegetable, or mineral.

   -  Maintainer: Entity that causes changes to the data in the
      repository. Usually, all maintainers are requesters, since they
      need to look at the data too, however, the roles are distinct.

   -  Access method: Well-defined series of operations that will cause
      data available from a repository to be obtained by the requester.

   -  Site: Entity that hosts all or part of a repository, and makes it
      available through one or more access methods.  A site may in
      various contexts be a machine, a datacenter, a network of
      datacenters, or a single device.

   This document is not intended to be either comprehensive or
   definitive, but is intended to give some aid in mutual comprehension
   when discussing information access methods to be incorporated into
   Internet Standards-Track documents.

2. Dimensions of classification

2.1 Uniqueness and scope

Some information systems are global, in the sense that only one can sensibly exist in the world. Others are inherently local, in that each locality, site or even box will run its own information store, independent of all others. The following terms are suggested: - Global repository: A repository that there can be only one of in the world. The world itself is a prime example; the public telephone system's number assignments according to E.164 is another. - Local repository: A class of repository of which multiple instances can exist, each with information relevant to that particular repository, with no need for coordination between them. - Centralized repository: A repository where all access to data has to pass through some single site. - Distributed repository: A repository that is not centralized; that is, access to data can occur through multiple sites.
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 3
   -  Replicated repository: A distributed repository where all sites
      have the same information.

   -  Cooperative repository: A distributed repository where not all
      sites have all the information, but where mechanisms exist to get
      the info to the requester, even when it is not available to the
      site originally asked.

   Note: The term "global" is often a matter of social or legal context;
   for instance, the E.164 telephone numbering system is global by
   international treaty, while the debate about whether the Domain Name
   System is global in fact or just a local repository with ambitions
   has proved bait for too many discussions to enumerate.

   Some claim that globality is in the eye of the beholder; "everything
   is local to some context".  When discussing technology, it may be
   wise to use "very widely deployed" instead.

   Note: Locating the repositories changes with the scale of
   consideration.  For instance, the global DNS system is considered a
   distributed cooperative repository, built out of zone repositories
   that themselves may be distributed, and are always replicated when

2.2 Search, Lookup, Query and Notify

A different consideration when describing repositories is the types of method they offer to find information. The chief classifications are: - Lookup methods require the user to know or guess some exact value before asking for information, sometimes called a "lookup key" or "identifier" and sometimes called a "name". The word "name" is NOT recommended, since it conflicts with other uses of that word The response to a successful lookup is a single group of information, often called "information about the identified entity". A lookup method is binary (yes/no) in recall: It either returns one result or no result; if it returns a result, that result is the right result for that lookup key, so it is also of binary precision (no info or completely relevant info). - Search methods require the user to know some approximate value of some information. They usually return zero, one, or more responses that match the information supplied according to some algorithm. Where the repository is structured around "entities", the information can be about zero, one, or many entities.
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 4
   In database terms, a lookup method corresponds to a query exactly
   matching a unique key on a table; all other database queries would be
   classified as "search" methods.

   In general, repositories that offer more flexible search methods may
   also give room for ad-hoc queries, refinements from a previous query,
   approximate matching and other aids; this may lead to many different
   combinations of precision and recall.

   One may define terms to enumerate what one gets out of these

      .  Precision is the degree to which what you asked for is what you
         wanted (no extraneous information)

      .  Recall is the ability to assure oneself that all relevant data
         from the repository is returned

      .  Type I errors occurs when relevant data  exists in the
         repository, but is not returned

      .  Type II errors occur when irrelevant data is returned with a
         query result

   Note that these concepts can only be applied when the property
   "relevance" is well defined; that is, it depends on what the
   repository is used for.  A further discussion of these topics is
   found in [KORFHAGE].

   An orthogonal dimension has to do with time:

   -  Query repositories will answer a request with a response, and once
      that is over with, will do nothing more.

   -  Notify repositories will get a request from a user to have
      information returned at some later time when it becomes available,
      current or whatever, and will respond at that time with a
      notification that information is available.

   -  Subscription repositories are like notify repositories, but will
      transfer the actual information when available.

2.3 Consistency models

Consistency (or the lack thereof) is a property of distributed repositories; for this particular discussion, we ignore the subject of semantically inconsistent data (such as occurrences of pregnant men), and focus on the problem of consistency where inconsistency is
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 5
   defined as having the same request, using the same credentials, be
   answered with different data at different sites.

   Distributed repositories may have:

   -  Strict consistency, where the problem above never arises.  This is
      quite difficult; repositories that exhibit this property are
      usually quite constrained and/or quite expensive.

   -  Strict internal consistency, where the replies always reflect a
      consistent picture of the total repository, but some sites may
      reflect an earlier version of the repository than others.

   -  Loose, converging consistency, where different parts of the
      repository may be updated at different times as seen from a single
      site, but the process is designed in such a way that if one stops
      making changes to the repository, all sites will sooner or later
      present the same information.

   -  Inconsistency, where no guarantee can be made whatsoever

   One interesting variant is subset consistency, where the system is
   consistent (according to one of the definitions above), but not all
   questions will be answered at all sites; possibly because different
   sites have different policies on what they make available (NetNews),
   or because different sites only need different subsets of the "whole
   picture" (BGP).

2.4 Security models

Its harder to describe security models in a few sentences than other properties of information systems. There also exists a large specialized literature on terminology for security, including [SEC]. Some thoughts, though: On trust in data: Why do we trust a piece of data to be correct? - Because it's in the repository (and therefore must have been authorized). This is perimeter (or Eggshell) integrity. - Because it contains internal integrity checks, usually involving digital signatures by verifiable identities. This is item integrity; the granularity of the integrity and the ability to do
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 6
      integrity checks on the relationships between objects is extremely
      important and extremely hard to get right, as is establishing the
      roots of the trust chains.

   -  Because it fits other available information, and causes the right
      things to happen when I use it.

      This is hopeful integrity.

   Which integrity model to choose is a matter of evaluating the cost of
   implementing the integrity (cost), the value to you of integrity of
   the resource being protected (value), and the impact of cost on doing
   business (risk).

   On access to information, the usual categories apply:

   -  Open access: Anyone can get the information.

   -  Property-based access: Access because of what you are, or where
      you are.  For example limited to "same network", "physically
      present", or "resolvable DNS name"

   -  Identity-based access: Access because of who you are (or
      successfully claim to be).  (I.e., username/password, personal
      certificates or other verifiable information.)

      These are then backed up by a layer specifying what the identity
      you have proven yourself to be has access to.

   -  Token-based access: Access because of what you have.  Hardware
      tokens, smartcards, certificates, or capability keys.

      In this case, access is given to all who can present that
      credential, without caring about their identity.

   The most common approaches are identity-based and open access;
   however, "what you have" access is commonly used informally in, for
   example, password-protected FTP or Web sites where the password is
   shared between all members of a group.

2.5 Update models

A few examples: - Read-only repositories have no standard means of changing the information in them. This is usually accomplished through some other interface than the standard interface.
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 7
   -  Read-mostly repositories are designed based on a theory that reads
      will greatly outnumber updates; this may, for instance, be
      reflected in relatively slow consistency-updating protocols.

   -  Read-write repositories assume that the updates and the read
      operations are of the same order of magnitude.

   -  Write-mostly repositories are designed to store an incoming stream
      of data, and when needed reproduce a relevant piece of data from
      the stream.  Typical examples are insurance company databases and
      audit logs.

2.6 The term "Directory"

The definitions above never used the term "Directory". In most common usages, the properties that a repository must have in order to be worthy of being called a directory are: - Search - Convergent consistency All the other terms above may vary across the set of things that are called "directories".

3. Classification of some real systems

3.1 The Domain Name System

The DNS [DNS] is a global cooperative lookup repository with loose, converging consistency and query capability only. It is either strictly read-only or read-mostly (with Dynamic DNS), has an open access model, and mainly perimeter integrity (some would say hopeful integrity). DNSSEC [DNSSEC] aims to give it item integrity. The DNS is built out of zone repositories that themselves may be distributed, and are always replicated when distributed. Note that like many other systems, the DNS has some features that do not fit neatly in the classification; for instance, there is a (deprecated and not widely used) function called IQUERY, which allows a very limited query capability.
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 8
   If one opens up the box and looks at the relationship between primary
   and secondary nameservers, that can be seen as a limited form of
   notify capability, but this is not available to end-users of the
   total system.

3.2 The (imagined) X.500 Global Directory

X.500 [X500] was intended to be a global search repository with loose, converging consistency. It was intended to be read-mostly, perimeter secure and query- capable.

3.3 The Global BGP Routing Information Database

The Global or top-level BGP routing information database [BGP1] is often viewed as a global read-write repository with loose, converging subset consistency (not all routes are carried everywhere) and very limited integrity control, mostly intended to be perimeter integrity based on, "access control based on what you are". One can argue that BGP [BGP2] is better viewed as a global mechanism for updating a set of local read/write repositories, since far from all routing information is carried everywhere, and the decision on what routes to accept is always considered a local policy matter. But from a security model perspective, a lot of the controls are applied at the periphery of the routing system, not at each local repository; this still makes it interesting to consider properties that apply to the BGP system as a whole.

3.4 The NetNews system

NetNews [NEWS] is a global read-write repository with loose (non- converging) subset consistency (not all sites carry all articles, and article retention times differ). Between sites it offers subscription capability; to users it offers both search and lookup functionality.


An SNMP [SNMP] agent can be thought of as a local, centralized repository offering lookup functionality. With SNMPv3, it offers all kinds of access models, but mostly, "access because of what you have", seems popular.
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 9

4. Security Considerations

Security is a very relevant question when considering information access systems. Some issues to consider are: - Controlled access to information - Controlled rights to update information - Protection of the information path from provider to consumer - With personal information, privacy issues - Interactions between multiple ways to access the same information It is probably a Good Thing to consider carefully the security models from section 2.4 when designing repositories or repository access protocols.

5. Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank all who contributed to this document, including Patrik Faltstrom, Eric A. Hall, James Benedict, Ted Hardie, Urs Eppenberger, John Klensin, and many others.

6. References

[SEC] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary", FYI 36, RFC 2828, May 2000. [DNS] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [DNSSEC] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999. [E164] ITU-T Recommendation E.164/I.331 (05/97): The International Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan. 1997. [BGP1] "Analyzing the Internet's BGP Routing Table", published in "The Internet Protocol Journal", Volume 4, No 1, April 2001. At the time of writing, available at
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 10
   [BGP2]      Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
               (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.

   [NEWS]      Kantor, B. and P. Lapsley, "Network News Transfer
               Protocol", RFC 977, February 1986.

   [SNMP]      Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart,
               "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard
               Network Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999.

   [X500]      Weider, C. and J. Reynolds, "Executive Introduction to
               Directory Services Using the X.500 Protocol", FYI 13, RFC
               1308, March 1992.

   [KORFHAGE] "Information Storage and Retrieval", Robert R. Korfhage,
               Wiley 1997.  See page 194 for "precision" and "recall"

7. Author's Address

Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cisco Systems Weidemanns vei 27 N-7043 Trondheim NORWAY Phone: +47 41 44 29 94 EMail:
ToP   noToC   RFC3254 - Page 11

8. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.