Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization
Alan Wong <wong@vancouver.osiware.bc.ca> Fri, 28 July 1995 02:35 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22811; 27 Jul 95 22:35 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22804; 27 Jul 95 22:35 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10169; 27 Jul 95 22:35 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.06612-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:35:53 +0100
Received: from osison.osiware.bc.ca by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.03607-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:35:16 +0100
Received: by osison.osiware.bc.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17004; Thu, 27 Jul 95 16:33:45 PDT
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 15:49:00 -0700
X400-Trace: ca*infonet*iss; Arrival 27 Jul 95 15:49 PDT Action: Relayed
Priority: urgent
Ua-Content-Id: 950727759
P1-Message-Id: ca*infonet*iss;95072715490116592110
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Alan Wong <wong@vancouver.osiware.bc.ca>
To: awon@vancouver.osiware.bc.ca
Cc: c.robbins@nexor.co.uk, bjjenni@somnet.sandia.gov, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <950615121237.20206c9a@hss.hns.com>
Message-Id: <950727759*wong@vancouver.osiware.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization
Importance: High
I have just tuned into this thread. Does any one have the complete thread they could forward to me? Thanks Lawrence C. Hutson, Consultant HCI International In message <950615121237.20206c9a@hss.hns.com> you write: >Hi, > >>| >Obviously, if a user has more that one e-mail accounts then he/she will >>| >be represented twice in the global directory. >>| >> No, this is not obvious, and certainly undesirable. In a global >> context, I want to be able to find a single entry for a user in a >> directory, and send mail to them. I do not want to be faced with two >> entries with similar names and have to choose. What criteria could I >> as a remote user base that judgement on? >> >> In simple synchronisation scenarios, having two email accounts does >> lead to two entries in the DIT. This is because the DIT structure is >> force by the LAN and post office distribution. >> >> In most organisations this leads to a false DIT structure that does >> not really represent the organisation in the way they want to be >> seen. >> >> With more complex synchronisation management tools it is possible to >> overlay details of the two accounts into one entry. This means you >> decide in advance how you want your DIT to look from an organisational >> perspective. The synchronisation tools can then overlay the LAN >> details onto the DIT defined, deciding on a per user basis, which one >> email address to publish, or both. This allows both LAN systems to be >> represented, but joint users to only be visible once. >> >> This is certainly the way I've approached synchronisation in the >> systems I've been involved in. Decide the DIT structure first, map the >> data onto it second. This also facilitates easier integration with >> non-LAN systems such as telephone numbers for personnel databases. > >Certainly, DIT structure will be decided first and data mapping happens >onto it. I feel that we are only discussing on the approach for data >mapping. Also, DIT structure will be (rather should be) of /C/O/OU/CN type >PLUS some more structures involving Locality. > >Regarding data mapping, I proposed "Rule Based Mapping" for most of the >E-mail users who have, only, one account as a normal case (of course, >without notice of users with two e-mail account, two DNs will be >generated). For Two email account users, There can be exception >handling i.e. "Treating them seperately" on a case to case basis. >Such accounts can become part of exception handling by NOT >Synchronising them through normal synchronisation mechanism. >This will require LESS administration overheads for maintaining >Directory. In this scheme, same DN mapping with two mail boxes is done as >exception handling. Certainly, in this scheme, a lot of pressure comes on >defining "Rules". We need to be very flexible and friendly mechanisms >of defining "Rules". This is a major challenge. However, solutions are >available. > >I feel that, in synchronisation mechanisms having same DN mapping for >two different mail boxes, administration overheads will be high. In this >case, DNs are administered by an administrator for every e-mail user !!!! >Also, Is this a normal scenario ???? > >Thanks and regards, > >Praveen >
- scenarios for Directory Synchronization PGUPTA
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Barbara Jennings
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Praveen Gupta, x2106
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Colin Robbins
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Praveen Gupta, 91-11-6470831/32 x2106
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Lawrence Hutson
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Alan Wong
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Alan Wong
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Alan Wong
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Alan Wong
- Re: scenarios for Directory Synchronization Barbara Jennings