DUA Metrics (OSI-DS 33 (v2))
RFC 1431
|
Document |
Type |
|
RFC - Informational
(February 1993; No errata)
|
|
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 1431 (Informational)
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group P. Barker
Request for Comments: 1431 University College London
February 1993
DUA Metrics
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.
Abstract
This RFC is being distributed to members of the Internet community in
order to solicit their reactions to the proposals contained in it.
While the issues discussed may not be directly relevant to the
research problems of the Internet, they may be interesting to a
number of researchers and implementers.
This document defines a set of criteria by which a DUA
implementation, or more precisely a Directory user interface, may be
judged. Particular issues covered include terminal requirements;
style of interface; target user; default object classes and attribute
types; use of DAP; error handling. The focus of the note is on
"white pages" DUAs: this is a reflection of the current information
base. Nevertheless much of the document will be applicable to DUAs
developed for other types of Directory usage.
Please send comments to the author or to the discussion group <osi-
ds@CS.UCL.AC.UK>.
Table of Contents
1. Overview................................................ 2
2. General Information..................................... 3
3. Conformance to OSI Standards............................ 5
3.1 Directory protocols.............................. 5
3.2 Protocol stacks.................................. 5
3.3 Schema .......................................... 5
3.4 DIT structure .................................. 5
4. Conformance to Research Community Standards............. 6
5. The General Style of the DUA............................ 6
6. Schema.................................................. 7
6.1 Object Classes and Attribute Types............... 7
6.2 DIT structure.................................... 8
7. Entering queries........................................ 9
Barker [Page 1]
RFC 1431 DUA Metrics February 1993
8. Strategy for locating entries........................... 9
9. Displaying results...................................... 10
10. Association Handling.................................... 11
11. Suitability for management.............................. 12
12. Query Resolution........................................ 13
13. International Languages................................. 16
14. User Friendliness....................................... 16
15. Operational Use......................................... 17
16. Security Considerations................................. 19
17. Author's Address........................................ 19
1. Overview
The purpose of this document is to define some metrics by which DUA
products can be measured. It should be first be noted that the use
of the term "DUA" is rather misleading. There is an assumption here
that the DUA is implemented correctly and is able to "talk" valid
X.500 protocol: this is a sine qua non. Instead, this document seeks
to draw out the characteristics of Directory user interfaces.
However, the term DUA is persisted with as it is used by most people
when referring to Directory user interfaces. The format of these DUA
metrics is essentially a questionnaire which extracts a detailed
description of a user interface. DUAs come in very different forms.
Many make use of windowing environments, offering a "high-tech" view
of the Directory, while others are designed to work in a terminal
environment. Some interfaces offer extensive control over the
Directory, and thus may be well-suited to Directory managers, while
others are aimed more at the novice user. Some interfaces are
configurable to allow searches for any attribute in any part of the
DIT, while others lack this generality but are focussed on handling
the most typical queries well. In many aspects, it is almost
impossible to say that one DUA is better than other from looking at
the responses to question in this document. A flexible management
tool will be better for management than a DUA aimed at servicing
simple look-ups, and vice-versa. Furthermore, in other areas, there
are several radically different approaches to a problem, but it is
not as yet clear whether one approach is better than another. One
example of this is the extent to which a DUA provides an abstraction
of the underlying DIT hierarchy, either emphasising the world as a
Show full document text