Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to support MIXER address mapping
RFC 2164

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (January 1998; No errata)
Obsoletes RFC 1838
Author Steve Kille 
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream IETF
Formats plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 2164 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         S. Kille
Request for Comments: 2164                                  Isode Ltd.
Obsoletes: 1838                                           January 1998
Category: Standards Track

    Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to support MIXER address mapping

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

1  MIXER X.400/RFC 822 Mappings

   MIXER (RFC 2156) defines an algorithm for use of a set of global
   mapping between X.400 and RFC 822 addresses [4].  This specification
   defines how to represent and maintain these mappings (MIXER
   Conformant Global Address Mappings of MCGAMs) in an X.500 or LDAP
   directory.  Mechanisms for representing OR Address and Domain
   hierarchies within the DIT are defined in [5, 2].  These techniques
   are used to define two independent subtrees in the DIT, which contain
   the mapping information.  The benefits of this approach are:

   1.  The mapping information is kept in a clearly defined area which
       can be widely replicated in an efficient manner.  The tree is
       constrained to hold only information needed to support the
       mapping.  This is important as gateways need good access to the
       entire mapping.

   2.  It facilitates migration from a table-based approach.

   3.  It handles the issues of "missing components" in a natural

          An alternative approach which is not taken is to locate the
          information in the routing subtrees.  The benefits of this
          would be:

Kille                       Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 2164         X.500/LDAP Directory to Support MIXER      January 1998

        o  It is the "natural" location, and will also help to
           ensure correct administrative authority for a mapping

        o  The tree will usually be accessed for routing, and so it
           will be efficient for addresses which are being routed.

          This is not done, as the benefits of the approach proposed are

   MCGAMs are global.  A MIXER gateway may use any set of MCGAMs.  A key
   use of the directory is to enable MIXER gateways to share MCGAMs and
   to share the effort of maintaining and publishing MCGAMs.  This
   specification and MIXER also recognise that there is not a single
   unique location for publication of all MCGAMs.  This specification
   allows for multiple sets of MCGAMs to be published.  Each set of
   MCGAMs is published under a single part of the directory.  There are
   four mappings, which are represented by two subtrees located under
   any part of the DIT. For the examples the location defined below is

   OU=MIXER MCGAMs, O=Zydeco Plc,  C=GB

   These subtree roots are of object class subtree, and use the
   mechanism for representing subtrees defined in [1].

   X.400 to RFC 822 This table gives the equivalence mapping from X.400
       to RFC 822.  There is an OR Address tree under this.  An example
       entry is:

       PRMD=Isode, ADMD=Mailnet, C=FI, CN=X.400 to RFC 822,
       OU=MIXER MCGAMs, O=Zydeco Plc,  C=GB

   RFC 822 to X.400 There is a domain tree under this.  This table holds
       the equivalence mapping from RFC 822 to X.400, and the gateway
       mapping defined in RFC 1327.  An example entry is:

       DomainComponent=ISODE, DomainComponent=COM,
       CN=RFC 822 to X.400,
       OU=MIXER MCGAMs, O=Zydeco Plc,  C=GB

   The values of the table mapping are defined by use of two new object
   classes, as specified in Figure 1.  The objects give pointers to the
   mapped components.

Kille                       Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 2164         X.500/LDAP Directory to Support MIXER      January 1998

2  Omitted Components

   In MIXER, it is possible to have omitted components in OR Addresses
   on either side of the mapping.  A mechanism to represent such omitted
   components is defined in Figure 2.  The attribute at-or-address-
   component-type is set to the X.500 attribute type associated with the
   omitted component (e.g.,

rFC822ToX400Mapping OBJECT-CLASS ::= {
    SUBCLASS OF {domain-component}
    ID oc-rfc822-to-x400-mapping}

x400ToRFC822Mapping OBJECT-CLASS ::= {
    SUBCLASS OF {top}
    MAY CONTAIN {                                                   10
    ID oc-x400-to-rfc822-mapping}

associatedORAddress ATTRIBUTE ::= {
Show full document text