GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc2120

Network Working Group D. Chadwick Request for Comments: 2120 University of Salford Category: Experimental March 1997

               Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context

Status of this Memo

 This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
 community.  This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
 kind.  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
 Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

 The X.500 Standard [X.500 93] has the concept of first level DSAs,
 whose administrators must collectively manage the root naming context
 through bi-lateral agreements or other private means which are
 outside the scope of the X.500 Standard.
 The NameFLOW-Paradise X.500 service has an established procedure for
 managing the root naming context, which currently uses Quipu
 proprietary replication mechanisms and a root DSA. The benefits that
 derive from this are twofold:
  1. firstly it is much easier to co-ordinate the management of the

root context information, when there is a central point of

    administration,
  1. secondly the performance of one-level Search operations is

greatly improved because the Quipu distribution and replication

    mechanism does not have a restriction that exists in the 1988 and
    1993 X.500 Standard.
 The NameFLOW-Paradise project is moving towards 1993 ISO X.500
 Standard replication protocols and wants to standardise the protocol
 and procedure for managing the root naming context which will be
 based on 1993 X.500 Standard protocols. Such a protocol and procedure
 will be useful to private X.500 domains as well as to the Internet
 X.500 public domain. It is imperative that overall system performance
 is not degraded by this transition.
 This document describes the use of 1993 ISO X.500 Standard protocols
 for managing the root context. Whilst the ASN.1 is compatible with
 that of the X.500 Standard, the actual settings of the parameters are
 supplementary to that of the X.500 Standard.

Chadwick Experimental [Page 1] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

Table of Contents

 1 Introduction.............................................   2
 2 Migration Plan...........................................   3
 3 Technical Solutions......................................   3
 4 The Fast Track Solution..................................   4
 5 The Slower Track Solution................................   6
 6 The Long Term Solution...................................   7
 7 Security Considerations..................................   8
 8 Acknowledgments..........................................   9
 9 References...............................................   9
 10 Author's Address........................................  10
 Annex 1 Solution Text of Defect Reports submitted to ISO/ITU-
      T by the UK...........................................  11
 Annex 2 Defect Report on 1993 X.500 Standard for Adding
      full ACIs to DISP for Subordinate References, so that
      Secure List Operation can be performed in Shadow DSAs.  12
 Annex 3 Defect Report on 1997 X.500 Standard Proposing
      an Enhancement to the Shadowing Agreement in order to
      support 1 Level Searches in Shadow DSAs...............  14

1 Introduction

 The NameFLOW-Paradise service has a proprietary way of managing the
 set of first level DSAs and the root naming context. There is a
 single root DSA (Giant Tortoise) which holds all of the country
 entries, and the country entries are then replicated to every country
 (first level) DSA and other DSAs by Quipu replication [RFC 1276] from
 the root DSA. In June 1996 there were 770 DSAs replicating this
 information over the Internet. The root DSA is not a feature of the
 X.500 Standard [X.500 93]. It was introduced because of the non-
 standard nature of the original Quipu knowledge model (also described
 in RFC 1276). However, it does have significant advantages both in
 managing the root naming context and in the performance of one-level
 Searches of the root.  Performance is increased because each country
 DSA holds all the entry information of every country.
 By comparison, the 1988 X.500 Standard root context which is
 replicated to all the country DSAs, only holds knowledge information
 and a boolean (to say if the entry is an alias or not) for each
 country entry. This is sufficient to perform an insecure List
 operation, but not a one-level Search operation. When access controls
 were added to the 1993 X.500 Standard, the root context information
 was increased (erroneously as it happens - this is the subject of
 defect report 140 - see Annex 1) to hold the access controls for each
 country entry, but a note in the X.500 Standard restricted its use to
 the List operation, in order to remain compatible with the 1988
 edition of the X.500 Standard.

Chadwick Experimental [Page 2] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

2 Migration Plan

 The NameFLOW-Paradise service is now migrating to X.500 Standard
 [X.500 93] conforming products, and it is essential to replace the
 Quipu replication protocol with the 1993 shadowing and operational
 binding protocols, but without losing the performance improvement
 that has been gained for one-level Searches.
 It is still the intention of the NameFLOW-Paradise service to have
 one master root DSA. This root DSA will not support user Directory
 operations via the LDAP, the DAP or the DSP, but each country (first
 level) DSA will be able to shadow the root context from this root
 DSA, using the DISP. Each first level DSA then only needs to have one
 bi-lateral agreement, between itself and the root DSA. This agreement
 will ensure that the first level DSA keeps the root DSA up to date
 with its country level information, and in turn, that the root DSA
 keeps the first level DSA up to date with the complete root naming
 context. When a new first level DSA comes on line, it only needs to
 establish a bi-lateral agreement with the root DSA, in order to
 obtain the complete root context.
 This is a much easier configuration to manage than simply a set of
 first level DSAs without a root DSA, as suggested in the ISO X.500
 Standard. In the X.500 Standard case each first level DSA must have
 bi-lateral agreements with all of the other first level DSAs. When a
 new first level DSA comes on line, it must establish agreements with
 all the existing first level DSAs. As the number of first level DSAs
 grows, the process becomes unmanageable.
 However, it is also important to increase the amount of information
 that is held about every country entry, so that a one-level Search
 operation can be performed in each first level DSA, without it
 needing to chain or refer the operation to all the other first level
 DSAs (as is currently the case with a X.500 Standard conforming
 system.)

3 Technical Solutions

 3.1 The solution at first appears to be relatively straight forward,
 and involves two steps. Firstly, create a root DSA, and establish
 hierarchical operational bindings using the DOP, between it and each
 master first level DSA. Secondly, each master first level DSA enters
 into a shadowing agreement with the root DSA, to shadow the enlarged
 root context information. In this way each first level DSA is then
 capable of independently performing List and one-level Search
 operations, and name resolving to all other first level DSAs.

Chadwick Experimental [Page 3] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

 3.2 Unfortunately there are a number of complications that inhibit a
 quick implementation of this solution. Firstly, few DSA suppliers
 have implemented the DOP. Secondly there are several defects in the
 X.500 Standard that currently stop the above solution from working.
 3.3 At a meeting chaired by DANTE in the UK on 18 June 1996[Mins], at
 which several DSA suppliers were present, the following pragmatic
 technical solution was proposed. This comprises a fast track partial
 solution and a slower track fuller solution. Both the fast and slower
 tracks use the shadowing protocol (DISP) for both steps of the
 solution, and do not rely on the DOP to establish HOBs. The fast
 track solution, described in section 4, will support knowledge
 distribution of the root context, and the (insecure) List operation
 of the root's subordinates. The List operation will be insecure
 because access control information will not be present in the shadow
 DSEs. (However, since it is generally thought that first level
 entries, in particular country entries, are publicly accessible, this
 is not considered to be a serious problem.) Suppliers expect to have
 the fast track solution available before the end of 1996. The slower
 track solution, described in section 5, will in addition support
 fully secure one level Search and List operations of the root
 (without the need to chain to the master DSAs). Suppliers at the
 DANTE meeting did not realistically expect this to be in their
 products much sooner than mid 1998.
 3.4 The long term solution, which relies on the DOP to establish
 HOBs, is described in section 6 of this document.
 (Note. It is strongly recommended that non-specific subordinate
 references should not be allowed in the root context for efficiency
 reasons. This is directed by the European functional X.500 Standard
 [ENV 41215] and the NADF standing document [NADF 7]. It is also
 preferred by the International X.500 Standardized Profile [ISP
 10615-6].)

4 The Fast Track Solution

 4.1 The fast track solution provides root knowledge collection and
 insecure List operations for first level DSAs, and will be of use to
 systems which do not yet support the DOP for managing hierarchical
 operational bindings. The fast track solution relies upon the DISP
 with very few changes to the 1993 edition of the X.500 Standard.

Chadwick Experimental [Page 4] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

 4.2 Each master first level DSA administrator will make available to
 the administrator of the root DSA, sufficient information to allow
 the root DSA to configure a subordinate reference to their DSA. In
 the simplest case, this can be via a telephone call, and the
 information comprises the access point of their DSA and the RDNs of
 the first level entries that they master.
 4.3 Each master first level DSA enters into a shadowing agreement
 with the root DSA, for the purpose of shadowing the root naming
 context.
 The 1993 edition of the X.500 Standard explicitly recognises that
 there can be master and shadow first level DSAs (X.501 Section 18.5).
 (The 1988 edition of the X.500 Standard does not explicitly recognise
 this, since it does not recognise shadowing.) A shadow first level
 DSA holds a copy of the root context, provided by a master first
 level DSA. In addition it holds shadow copies of the (one or more)
 country entries that the master first level DSA holds. There is
 currently an outstanding defect report [UK 142] on the 1993 X.500
 Standard to clarify how a shadowing agreement is established between
 first level DSAs. Once this has been ratified, the only additional
 text needed in order to establish a shadowing agreement between the
 root DSA and a master first level DSA is as follows:
 "When clause 9.2 of ISO/IEC 9594-9:1993 is applied to the
 shadowing of the root context by a first level DSA from the root
 DSA of a domain, then UnitOfReplication shall be set as follows:
 contextPrefix of AreaSpecification shall be null,
 replicationArea of AreaSpecification shall be set to
                     SEQUENCE {
      specificExclusions  [1]  SET OF {
           chopBefore          [0]  FirstLevelEntry},
      maximum             [3]  1 }
 where FirstLevelEntry is the RDN of a first level entry (e.g.
 country, locality or international organisation) held by the
 master first level DSA. specificExclusions shall contain one
 FirstLevelEntry for each first level entry mastered by this DSA,
 attributes of UnitofReplication shall be an empty SET OF SEQUENCE,
 knowledge of UnitofReplication shall be set to both (shadow and
 master).

Chadwick Experimental [Page 5] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

 In other words, the information that will be replicated will be an
 empty root entry plus all the attributes of the complete set of
 subordinate DSEs of the root that are held in the root DSA excluding
 the DSEs that the first level DSA already masters, plus a complete
 set of subordinate reference."
 Note that the maximum component of replicationArea, although not
 strictly necessary, is there for pragmatic reasons, for example,
 where a community of users wish to use the root DSA to hold some
 country specific entries.

5 The Slower Track Solution

 5.1 The slower track solution provides support for fully secure one
 level Search and List operations of the root in first level DSAs, and
 comprises of two steps for HOB establishment between the root DSA and
 master first level DSAs, using the DISP instead of the DOP. Step one,
 described in 5.3, allows the root DSA to shadow first level entries
 from a master first level DSA. Step two, described in 5.4, requires
 either the root DSA administrator or the root DSA implementation to
 massage the shadow first level entries so that they appear to have
 been created by a HOB.  Managing the root context then continues as
 in 4.3 above.
 5.2 This solution requires two significant defects in the ISO X.500
 Standard to be corrected. Firstly, access control information needs
 to be added to subordinate references in the DISP to allow the List
 operation to work securely in a shadowed DSA. (The ACI are held in
 both the subr DSE and in its subentry.) This requires a defect report
 on the 93 X.500 Standard to be submitted. The text of this defect
 report (that has been submitted to ISO) is given in Annex 2.
 Secondly, a new type of shadowing agreement will need to be
 established between the supplier and consumer DSAs, to copy
 subordinate entries rather than simply subordinate references, so
 that one level Search operations can work in the shadowing DSA.  This
 procedure should have been part of the 1997 edition of the X.500
 Standard, but due to an omission is not. Consequently  a defect
 report on the 1997 X.500 Standard has been submitted. The text of
 this defect report is given in Annex 3.

Chadwick Experimental [Page 6] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

 5.3 The hierarchical operational binding between the root DSA and a
 master first level DSA can be replaced by a set of "spot" shadowing
 agreements, in which the first level DSA acts as the supplier, and
 the root DSA as the consumer. Each "spot" shadowing agreement
 replicates a first level entry which is mastered by the first level
 DSA. The UnitOfReplication shall be set as follows:
 contextPrefix of AreaSpecification shall be FirstLevelEntry,
 replicationArea of AreaSpecification shall be set to
                     SEQUENCE {
      specificExclusions  [1]  SET OF {
                     chopAfter [1]  {null} } }
 where FirstLevelEntry is the Distinguished Name of a first level
 entry (e.g. country, locality or international organisation) held by
 the master first level DSA.
 attributes of UnitofReplication shall be an empty SET OF SEQUENCE,
 knowledge of UnitofReplication shall be absent.
 5.4 The root DSA administrator, or the root DSA implementation
 (suitably tailored) must then administratively update each shadowed
 first level entry, so that they appear to have been created by a HOB,
 i.e. it is necessary to add a subordinate reference to each one of
 them. The subordinate reference will point to the respective master
 first level DSA, and will comprise of a specific knowledge attribute,
 and the DSE bit of type subr being set. The contents of the specific
 knowledge attribute can be created from the contents of the supplier
 knowledge attribute already present in the first level entry and
 created by the "spot" shadowing agreement.

6 The Long Term Solution

 6.1 Each master first level DSA will have a hierarchical operational
 binding with the root DSA of the domain. Each master first level DSA
 will master one or more first level entries. The hierarchical
 operational binding will keep the appropriate subordinate
 reference(s) (of category shadow and master) up to date, as well as
 the other entry information that is needed for one-level Search
 operations (such as access controls, and attributes used in
 filtering).

Chadwick Experimental [Page 7] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

 Whilst hierarchical agreements are standardised, this particular
 novel use of a HOB is not specifically recognised in the X.500
 Standard.  Although the ASN.1 will support it, there is no supporting
 text in the X.500 Standard. The following text supplements that in
 the X.500 Standard, and describes how a first level DSA may have a
 hierarchical operational binding with the root DSA of its domain.
 "Clause 24 of ISO/IEC 9594-4:1993 shall also apply when a first level
 DSA is a subordinate DSA, and the root DSA of the domain is the
 superior DSA. The naming context held by the superior (root) DSA is
 the root naming context (or root context - the terms are synonymous)
 of the domain. The root context consists of the root entry of the DIT
 (which is empty) plus a complete set of subordinate DSEs (i.e. first
 level DSEs), one for each first level naming context in the domain,
 and their corresponding subentries.  The first level DSEs and their
 subentries will contain, in addition to specific knowledge attribute
 values of category master and shadow, sufficient attributes and
 collective attributes, including access control information, to allow
 List and one-level Search operations to be performed on them.
 In clause 24.1.2, the DistinguishedName of the immediateSuperior
 component of HierarchicalAgreement shall be null."
 6.2 The ASN.1 of hierarchical operational bindings already allows any
 attributes to be passed from the subordinate DSA to the superior DSA
 (SubordinateToSuperior parameter in clause 24.1.4.2 of X.518).
 However, a note in the 1993 edition of the X.500 Standard limits this
 to those which are required to perform a List operation. In the 1997
 edition of the X.500 Standard [DAM User] this restriction has been
 removed, so that the attributes may also be used for a one-level
 Search operation.
 1993 implementations of X.500 conforming to this RFC, shall also
 remove this restriction.

7 Security Considerations

 Security considerations are discussed in this memo in relation to
 List and one-level Search operations. Each DSE has access control
 information associated with it, and these must be adhered to when the
 operations are performed.

Chadwick Experimental [Page 8] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

8 Acknowledgments

 The author would like to thank DANTE, without whose funding this work
 would not have been possible.
 The author would also like to thank Nexor, who reviewed the first
 version of this document in detail and provided valuable comments,
 and who first suggested the use of the DISP as a pragmatic solution
 for HOB establishment until the DOP becomes widely implemented.
 The author would also like to thank John Farrell from the ISODE
 Consortium, Andrew Palk   from Digital and Keith Richardson from ICL
 who attended the DANTE meeting, and contributed to the technical
 contents of the defect reports in Annexes 2 and 3.

9 References

 [DAM User] Draft Amendments on Minor Extensions to OSI Directory
 Service to support User Requirements, August 1995.
 [ENV 41215] "Behaviour of DSAs for Distributed Operations",
 European X.500 Pre-Standard, Dec 1992
 [ISP 10615-6] "DSA Support of Distributed Operations", 5th draft
 pDISP, Oct 1994
 [Mins] "Notes of DANTE meeting to discuss Managing the Root Naming
 Context. 18 June 1996." D W Chadwick, circulated to IDS mailing
 list
 [NADF 7] SD-7 "Mapping the North American DIT onto Directory
 Management Domains", North American Directory Forum, V 8.0, Jan
 1993
 [RFC 1276] Kille, S., "Replication and Distributed Operations
 extensions to provide an Internet Directory using X.500", UCL,
 November 1991.

Chadwick Experimental [Page 9] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

 [UK 142] Defect report number 142, submitted by the UK to ISO,
 March 1995. (Proposed solution text included in Annex 1)
 [X.500 93] X.500 | 9594.Part 1 Overview of Concepts, Models and
 Services
 X.501 | 9594.Part 2 Models
 X.511 | 9594.Part 3 Abstract Service Definition
 X.518 | 9594.Part 4 Procedures for Distributed Operations
 X.519 | 9594.Part 5 Protocol Specifications
 X.520 | 9594.Part 6 Selected Attribute Types
 X.521 | 9594.Part 7 Selected Object Classes
 X.509 | 9594.Part 8 Authentication Framework
 X.525 | 9594.Part 9 Replication

10 Author's Address

 D W Chadwick
 IT Institute
 University of Salford
 Salford
 M5 4WT
 England
 Phone: +44 161 745 5351
 Fax: +44 161 745 8169
 E-mail: D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk

Chadwick Experimental [Page 10] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

Annex 1 Solution Text of Defect Reports submitted to ISO/ITU-T by

 the UK

Defect Report 140

 Nature of Defect
 In section 24.1.4.2 it is defined that the SubordinateToSuperior
 parameter of a HOB can pass an entryInfo parameter. This should
 contain entryACI which may be used in the resolution of the List
 operation.
 This is not correct as the prescriptive ACI from the relevant
 subentries is also required in the superior DSA.
 Solution Proposed by Source
 It is proposed that the following is added to the
 SubordinateToSuperior SEQUENCE of section 24.1.4.2 of X.518:
      subentries     [2] SET OF SubentryInfo OPTIONAL
 This is used to pass the relevant subentries from the subordinate to
 the superior. This is similar to the way subentry information is
 passed in the SuperiorToSubordinate parameter defined in 24.1.4.1.

Defect Report 142

 Nature of Defect
 The text which describes AreaSpecification in clause 9.2 of X.525 is
 completely general. However, for the special case of replicating
 first level knowledge references between first level DSAs, a
 clarifying sentence should be added.
 Solution Proposed by Source
 In Section 9.2, under the ASN.1, after the description of area, and
 before the description of SubtreeSpecification, add the sentence:
    "For the case where a DSA is shadowing first level knowledge from
    a first level DSA, the contextPrefix component is empty."

Chadwick Experimental [Page 11] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

Annex 2 Defect Report on 1993 X.500 Standard for Adding full ACIs to

    DISP for Subordinate References, so that Secure List Operation can
    be performed in Shadow DSAs
 Nature of Defect:
 The List operation may be carried out in a superior DSA using
 subordinate reference information, providing that the fromEntry flag
 is set to false in the response. However, in order to do this
 securely, complete access control information is needed for the RDN
 of the subordinate entry. The existing text assumes that this is held
 in entry ACI (e.g. see 9.2.4.1 c) or in prescriptive ACI held in
 subentries above the DSE (e.g. see 9.2.4.1 b). In the case of a
 subordinate reference, the prescriptive ACI may be held below the
 DSE, if the subordinate reference points to a new administrative
 point. The shadowing document needs to make it clear that this can be
 the case, and needs to allow for this additional access control
 information to be shadowed.
 A related defect report (140) has already suggested that this same
 omission should be added to operational bindings.
 Solution Proposed by the Source:
 All the following changes are to X.525|ISO 9594-9.
 I) Insert the following text into 7.2.2.3, at the end of both the
 second paragraph and the first sentence of the third paragraph (after
 "appropriate knowledge"): "and access control information."
 II) Insert a new third paragraph into 7.2.2.3: "If  subordinate
 knowledge is supplied, and the supplying DSE (of type subr) is also
 of type admPoint, then the SDSE shall additionally be of type
 admPoint and the administrativeRole attribute shall be supplied.  If
 such a DSE has any immediately subordinate subentries containing
 PrescriptiveACI relating to the administrative point, then they shall
 also be supplied as SDSEs in the shadowed information.
 Note. A DSE can be of type subr and admPoint in a superior DSA, when
 the naming context in the subordinate DSA is the start of a new
 administrative area."
 III) Update figure 3 to show a subentry immediately below a
 subordinate reference. The subentry contains prescriptiveACI and is
 part of the shadowed information.

Chadwick Experimental [Page 12] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

                          .
  Etc.                   / \
                        /   \
                       /  o  \
                      /  / \  \
 Replicated          /  /   \  \
 Area --------------/--/->   \  \
                   /  /       \  \
                  /  /         \  \
                 /  /           \  \
 Subordinate    /__/_____________\__\
 knowledge--------/-> o   o    o  \
                 /   /          \  \
 Prescriptive---/-> o            o  \
 ACI Subentries/                     \
                 Unit of Replication
              Etc.
               o
              / \
             /   \
            /     \
           /       \
          /         \
         /           \
        /_____________\
         o    o     o
        /            \
       o              o
     Shadowed Information
               ADDITIONS TO FIGURE 3, SECTION 7.2, X.525
 IV) Add supporting text to section 7.2 in the paragraph after Figure
 3. Insert after the sentence "Subordinate knowledge may also be
 replicated" the following sentences "Implicit in the Add supporting
 text to section 7.2 in the paragraph after Figure 3.  Insert after
 the sentence subordinate knowledge is the access control information
 which governs access to the RDN of the subordinate knowledge. When
 the subordinate entry is an administrative point in another DSA, then
 part of this access control information may be held in
 prescriptiveACI subentries beneath the subordinate knowledge."
 v) Add a new point d) to 9.2.4.1: "if subordinate knowledge (not
 extended knowledge) is shadowed then any prescriptiveACI in
 subordinate subentries shall also be copied."

Chadwick Experimental [Page 13] RFC 2120 Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context March 1997

Annex 3 Defect Report on 1997 X.500 Standard Proposing an Enhancement to the Shadowing Agreement in order to support 1 Level Searches in Shadow DSAs.

 Nature of Defect:
 The 1997 edition of the X.500 Standard has allowed, for reasons of
 operational efficiency, one level Searches to be carried out in the
 superior DSA, when the actual entries are context prefixes in
 subordinate DSAs. The HOBs have been extended to allow this entry
 information to be carried up to the superior DSA. Unfortunately, we
 forgot to add the corresponding text to Part 9, so that shadow DSAs
 are able to copy this additional information from the supplier DSA.
 This defect report proposes the additional text for Part 9.
 Solution Proposed by the Source:
 All the following changes are to X.525|ISO 9594-9.
 I) Section 9.2, add a new subordinates parameter to
 UnitOfReplication, viz:
 UnitOfReplication   ::= SEQUENCE{
 area                AreaSpecification,
 attributes          AttributeSelection,
 knowledge           Knowledge OPTIONAL,
 subordinates        BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE }
 subordinates is used to indicate that subordinate entries, rather
 than simply subordinate references, are to be copied to the
 consumer DSA. subordinates may only be TRUE if knowledge is
 requested and extendedKnowledge is FALSE.
 II) Insert a new fourth paragraph (assuming previous defect for
 List was accepted) into 7.2.2.3:
 "If subordinates is specified, then the supplier shall send
 subordinate entries rather than subordinate references, and the
 SDSEs will be of type subr, entry and cp. The subordinate entries
 will contain attributes according to the attribute selection.
 In addition, if the supplying DSE is of type admPoint, then the
 SDSE shall additionally be of type admPoint and the
 administrativeRole attribute shall be supplied. All appropriate
 subentries below the admPoint DSE shall also be supplied as SDSEs
 in the shadowed information."

Chadwick Experimental [Page 14]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc2120.txt · Last modified: 1997/03/27 23:56 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki