Conference makrel::msg_solutions

685.0. "X.500 details for RFP" by NETRIX::"[email protected]" (David Barnett) Fri Mar 21 1997 12:06

I'm working on an proposal for a major customer, and they are requesting a
*lot* of detail. I'm looking for good source material for a "cut and paste."

Any URL's, documents that I can access or receive via e-mail, etc. would be
greatly appreciated.

They have a large list of X.500 RFC's they want specific yes/no compliance
statements on. I've found our conformance to all but four:
   RFC 1960 A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
   RFC 1959 An LDAP URL Format
   RFC 2079 Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an Object Class to Hold
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
   RFC 1838 Use of the X.500 Directory to support mapping between X.400 and
RFC 822 Addresses

Here are some other questions that I have to address:

   Install process. Describe the installation process and the placement of the
directory services components.

   Clients. Describe how proprietary directory client software is installed,
upgraded, and de-installed, and if un-attended installation is possible, how
it is performed and managed. 

   Capacity management tools. Comment on availability of directory services
capacity planning and performance analysis tools.

   Performance analysis. Comment on solution's ability to collect performance
analysis and capacity planning data consistently across all directory services
and deliver in a common format. Describe/list your performance management
tools. 

   Audit trails. Describe the various audit trails of administrative, system,
and client functions performed by the system, the operating parameters of
these audit trails (such as selective audit event logging), the tools used to
"digest" or report results and anomalies from these trails, and if the audit
trails can be sent automatically to an audit trail server that processes the
reports. 

   Directory metrics. Describe your solution's ability to provide metrics
reporting utilization and performance data both real time and for historical
analysis.  Describe interfaces, APIs, display functions, reports produced,
etc.  Metrics of particular interest include (but are not limited to)
directory inquiry/update rates and response times, directory inquiry/update
sizes, directory server store utilization (including space, memory, CPU)
identifiable by server, by user, and system wide.  Provide information
granularity and timeliness of information provided by your solution.  Comment
on real time performance analysis tools available for debugging perceived
performance bottlenecks and the ability to diagnose performance/utilization
problems.

   Delivery. Describe the process for the methods of delivery of software
upgrades (fixes and enhancements). Describe the timelines for delivery. 

   New versions. Describe your company's policy for the frequency of delivery
of replacement software versions, both major (versions) and minor (releases).
Describe the policy (number of months) of support for products at a fixed
version before support is suspended after a more current version is released. 

   Installation requirements. Describe the process for installing (and
un-installing) replacement software. Describe what kind of replacement
software is provided: record level, file level, component level, or product
level. 


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Nick Tatham answered the RFC questions. (Thanks, Nick!)

Does our X.500 directory support:
*	RFC 1960 A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters

[Nick Tatham]  Yes we do. This supercedes RFC1558 that we supported.

*	RFC 1959 An LDAP URL Format

[Nick Tatham]  This is an issue for web browsers to support so that they can
talk to an X.500 directory. If the browser supports it itcan talk to our
directory.

*	RFC 2079 Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an Object Class to
Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

[Nick Tatham]  No we don't support this out-of-the-box. The schema could be
extended to include this however.

*	RFC 1838 Use of the X.500 Directory to support mapping between X.400
and RFC 822 Addresses

[Nick Tatham]  This is an issue for the X.400 MTA if it uses the directory




[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]