Applications Area

Directors:


   o Erik Huizer:  erik.huizer@surfnet.nl
   o John Klensin:  klensin@infoods.unu.edu


Area Summary reported by John Klensin/United Nations University and
Erik Huizer/SURFnet

This is a short report on the status of the Applications Area up to the
conclusion of the Seattle IETF meeting March 1994.

The Applications Area currently contains the following working groups:


   o Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)
   o Notifications and Acknowledgements Requirements (NOTARY)
   o OSI Directory Services (OSIDS)
   o TELNET (TELNET)
   o TELNET TN3270 Enhancements (TN3270E)
   o X.400 Operations (X400OPS)


In addition, the Applications Area and the User Services Area jointly
oversee the following working groups:


   o Integrated Directory Services (IDS)
   o Integration of Internet Information Resources (IIIR)
   o Internet Anonymous FTP Archives (IAFA)
   o Networked Information Retrieval (NIR)
   o Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
   o Whois and Network Information Lookup Service (WNILS)


The status of these groups is described in the User Services Area
Report.

During the Seattle IETF, the Applications Area also sponsored the
following BOF sessions.  These BOFs are expected to evolve into working
groups.


   o Access and Synchronization of the Internet Directory (ASID)
   o Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
   o A Framework for a White Pages Service for the Internet (PAGES)



Access and Synchronization of the Internet Directory BOF (ASID)


The ASID BOF was held as part of an evolving plan, introduced in
Houston, to consolidate IETF Directory and Directory Services efforts
and provide a more coherent focus for them (see also the PAGES summary
below).

The ASID charter was reviewed and generally accepted by the group.
There was some discussion of a name change, to be continued on the list.
The group decided that the best method of operation was to spawn
subgroups or small teams of people to do the in-depth technical work
using separate mailing lists (e.g., for SOLO, WHOIS++, LDAP, etc.).
These groups would then bring their drafts/designs/etc. to the main list
for review.  Actual work proceeded with a presentation by Paul-Andre
Pays on the SOLO Directory Service.  Discussion of SOLO was
wide-ranging, with the conclusion that the document needed some more
detail in various areas (e.g., information model, query structure).
Next, LDAP was discussed.  Some minor editorial comments were raised,
all of which will be resolved.  Since there are now two interoperable
independent implementations, Erik was tasked with raising LDAP to Draft
Standard status.  CLDAP was next, with discussion led by Simon Spero.
It was decided that a requirements document would help the group
understand better what the CLDAP service features should be.  Simon
volunteered to write such a document.



Electronic Data Interchange BOF (EDI)


The first IETF meeting on EDI met in Seattle to:


   o Introduce IETF participants to the EDI domain of discourse,

   o Review work from the mailing list,

   o Assess continued IETF interest in working in this domain and the
     priorities by which the mailing list has been functioning, and

   o Initiate new work.


In particular, the MIME Content-Type definitions were reviewed, and a
preliminary discussion about the EDI-over-Internet Usage document was
conducted.  Attendance was substantially higher than expected (40
people, including several members of the EDI community who were not
previously active IETF participants) for a topic previously thought to
be rather arcane for the IETF. A Content-Type naming contest was
initiated, and completed the following day.  There was a clear consensus
for continuing this work as a formally chartered working group.



A Framework for a White Pages Service for the Internet (PAGES)

The PAGES BOF complements the ASID BOF as part of the exploration of a
new IETF Directory model or set of models.  The BOF covered the
following general topics and is expected to evolve into one or more
working groups to address them further:


   o Describing the basic White Pages service framework

   o Identifying the issues common to all White Pages services that
     would benefit from standardization to provide more functionality
     between them

   o Identifying the working groups that need to be established and
     drafting a charter

   o Categorizing key issues into common White Page service issues and
     protocol specific issues


During the BOF, the group concluded that a working group should be
formed to write a White Pages service requirements document, with its
work to be completed prior to the next IETF meeting.  That group has
formed a mailing list and met informally at the end of the Seattle IETF
session.  Once that work is finished, a group is likely to be formed to
look at interoperability issues.  Work on acceptable practices and
administrative and policy issues will be transferred to the Integrated
Directory Services Working Group (IDS).


Internet Message Access Protocol Working Group (IMAP)

The IMAP Working Group continues to make progress on the development of
the IMAP4 protocol.  There were two sessions held in Seattle, with the
major focus being on document clarifications, the addition of a
``capabilities'' statement, and further discussion of ``flags.''  The
new target date for completion of a Proposed Standard is 1 June 1994,
with the associated draft available no later than 1 May.

Specific conclusions from the Seattle discussions:


   o A new ``capabilities'' command was added.  The intent is to provide
     a convenient way for a client to discover optional extensions on a
     server without having to ``go fishing'' (i.e.  probing for
     individual capabilities).  The approach was encouraged in part by
     statements that a similar philosophy in SMTPEXT has worked very
     well.

   o Several proposed functional extensions were deferred as candidates
     for the new ``capabilities'' capability.  (These included:  Have
     server do MD5 validation; have server do MIME External/FTP
     fetching, provide per-message annotation, and provide for binary
     transfer of large MIME objects such as voice mail.)

   o Additional authentication schemes (beyond user/passwd and Kerberos)
     will be accommodated.

   o Some additional text is needed in the document to address
     disconnected use and failure/error conditions more fully.

   o Restructuring of the document into several self-standing ``chunks''
     is needed, with some of those chunks turning into either appendices
     or separate documents.

   o There are still some open issues on flags that need to be nailed
     down or intentionally not nailed down.


Notifications and Acknowledgements Requirements Working Group (NOTARY)

The NOTARY Working Group is new with this IETF, and addresses issues in
delivery notifications and requests, and other types of notifications in
electronic mail.

The working group first reviewed Keith Moore's draft specification for a
``delivery status reports'' SMTP extension.  The only substantial change
decided on by the group was an additional parameter specifically to
control the generation of ``message delayed in transit'' reports.  The
group then proceeded to review and compare the two drafts by Keith Moore
and Greg Vaudreuil describing possible MIME status report formats.  It
was agreed that the specification should define an extensible report
format and also specify how this format should be used to provide
delivery status reports.


OSI Directory Services Working Group (OSIDS)

The OSIDS Working Group did not meet in Seattle.  The charter has been
completed and the group will disband.  Ongoing work will be taken up in
the general White Pages effort (see the PAGES summary above).


TELNET Working Group (TELNET)

The TELNET Working Group did not meet in Seattle because the members
present concluded that insufficient progress had been made since Houston
to justify meeting.

The remaining TELNET work items are:


   o Clean up the merged authentication encryption draft

   o Implement a prototype, probably with Kerberos IV

   o Contact the author of an independent submission on encryption and
     explain to him why the group is taking a different approach

   o Merge the DES encryption documents into the Kerberos IV and V
     drafts and clean those up

   o Post the drafts for review, and if agreeable, submit them as
     Proposed Standards


Once these tasks are completed, the working group will conclude.



TELNET TN3270 Enhancements Working Group (TN3270E)

The TN3270E Working Group did not meet in Seattle, largely because work
is being concluded by e-mail and no face-to-face meeting was thought
necessary.  Since the Houston meeting, an Informational RFC has been
produced on current practices with TN3270 (RFC 1576).  The document on
TN3270 extensions is in final review by the working group.  It is
expected to be processed as a Proposed Standard well before the Toronto
meeting.  A companion document, covering another approach to the
handling of LUNames and printing facilities will be reviewed at the same
time and probably published as an Informational RFC.

This working group is expected to conclude its work before the Toronto
IETF.



X.400 Operations Working Group (X400OPS)

The X400OPS Working Group did not meet in Seattle.  This group is in the
process of concluding its work items with a few documents outstanding,
but no actual meetings are needed.  The working group is expected to
conclude prior to the Toronto meeting.