home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- This in only a rough draft - Megan 04/10/92
-
- Minutes, 4th meeting in the IETF X.400 Operations Working Group, IETF San
- Diego, California, U.S.A.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- MEETING TIME:
-
- TUESDAY, March 17, 1992, 1:30- 3:30 PM
- WEDNESDAY, March 18, 1992, 9:00-12:00 noon, 1:30-3:30 PM
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 1. Review minutes and liaison report
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Liaison report: (given on March 18, 1992)
-
- MHS-MD subcommittee of Study Group D of the US Department of State (the
- administrator of C=US) liaison report from Stef.
-
- US backbone will exist as virtual ADMD, all ADMDs must be able to send
- mail to all other ADMDs. The ADMDs, however, do not have to be directly
- connected to the other ADMDs. PRMD names do NOT have to be unique in US.
- You can register with a service provider using ADMD=USBB (rather than the
- service providers ADMD), provided that you are registered in the national
- registry.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 2. Action list from last meeting:
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- a) EMA (Electronic Mail Association) member present: John Sherburne,
- SPRINT, gave report: Liaison from EMA (non official) - Full connectivity
- with commercial world is important. Biggest problem is naming of domains
- (in particular ADMD='blank').
-
- b) Alf - Tell WG1 that mapping coordination procedures should be published
- as a RFC. WG1 chair, Urs Eppenberger, at this meeting was notified, and
- volunteered the COSINE MHS Project Team to submit the coordination
- procedures as an experimental RFC.
-
- c) All other action items done.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 3. Review of "Routing coordination for X.400 MHS services within a multi
- protocol /multi network environment" by Urs Eppenberger
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Urs gave an overview of his document. Following terms were defined: WEP,
- MHS Community, MHS subtree.
-
- It was noted that all WEPs must know about all other WEPs within a given
- community.
-
- Routing coordination document was created, in part, to facilitate the
- connection of domains that do not share the same lower layer stacks.
-
- Selection of the WEP is determined by the priority and delay parameters in
- the DOMAIN document.
-
- General Discussion Starts:
-
- Tony Genovese had a number of operational questions that were not answered
- in the document. Urs said that was not part of the scope of the document.
-
- Urs volunteered the COSINE MHS Project Team to be the global MHS
- coordinator.
-
- The COSINE MHS-Managers meetings will have to be funded by the regional
- networks after this next meeting. Tony expressed his concern that we may
- loose global coordination if this group goes away.
-
- Urs stated that there should be no more than 100 WEPs per community.
-
- Conclusion: Urs document looks good. This WG recommends that this document
- be published as a draft RFC with the assumption that it will be moved to
- "experimental RFC" status.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 4. March 18, 1992- Alf presented his view of "Our Community".
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- This community consists of at least three sub-communities: The COSINE
- Community, North American community, Pacific Rim community.
-
- Stef floated an idea - MIX (mail exchange point) should be created to
- allow mail systems to connect at a (possible virtual) central MTA. Stef
- also noted that "OUR" is not a good name for a community. Will probably
- create misunderstandings.
-
- Conclusion:
- We need a single global community. If we need more sub-communities, we
- will deal with that when the need surfaces.
-
- The WG agreed that there should be mandatory support of X.25, RFC1006 and
- CLNS. THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT EACH WEP IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ALL THREE
- STACKS. Bilateral agreements must be made where support of one of the
- mandatory stacks is not present. It was noted that some people may not
- want to go to the trouble of making these agreements. This (hopefully
- small) group will have to form a sub-community of our global community.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 5. Review of "Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- The WG discussed the use of ADMD=<blank>. The WG decided to add editors
- note that the semantics of ADMD=<blank> are not yet understood.
-
- Rob Hagens discussed the following comments from WG1:
-
- NOTE: Some editorial changes not included in minutes: See new version of
- document.
-
-
- Section 1.2: Profiles
-
- Which profiles should we support? There was a request to add UK Gosip.
- It was decided that the section should be phrased more generically. Basic
- idea is that there are many different profiles. Each country will have to
- support their own profile.
-
-
- Section 3.1.7: Domain Defined Attributes
-
- Request to soften requirement of support of DDAs. Something to effect of
- "old MTAs don't have to support DDAs; new ones MUST support DDAs". The WG
- agreed that DDA support should remain mandatory.
-
- Request to make automatic return of contents mandatory. The WG decided to
- add a recommendation to support automatic return of contents.
-
- Global substitute "The Internet X.400 Community" for "International X.400
- Service".
-
- Add a section to the document that defines "Our X.400 Community".
-
-
- Section 2.1: Management Domains
-
- Question: "Should a MD be part of a community". Yes is the answer.
-
- It was suggested that a new section that specifies the minimum requirement
- of WEPs be added. Alf suggested that a separate document be created to
- address this issue.
-
-
- Section 2.2: WEP
-
- Should this section be re-written using the "community" concept? NO.
-
- Last sentence: Replace "shall operate" with "shall route"
-
- WG agreed to add a statement that says that one level of OUs SHOULD be
- used.
-
-
- Section 3.1.6: Given name, Initials, Surname
-
- Add a sentence that we recommend using
-
- 1) Given name + surname OR
- 2) Initials + Surname
-
- Add statement that you SHALL NOT use dots between initials.
-
-
- Section 3.5: Minimum statistics/accounting
-
- It was decided that we get a list of the data elements that are required.
-
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 6. WG Business:
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Review of Charter:
-
- Alf will update and send to list
-
- List of documents:
-
- Routing document
- Operational requirements document
- 7 documents from MHS-DS WG
- 2 documents form MIME/MHS WG
- Mapping table update procedure from WG1
- MAIL11 Gateway
- DNS
- 1148bis
- 88/84 Downgrading
- X.400 and International character sets.
-
- General discussion of problem with documents originated outside of IETF.
- There have been problems convincing people to publish these documents as
- RFCs.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 7. Claudio Allocchio presented his paper on "Mapping between X.400 and
- Mail-11"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Comment from Stef to change the way BCC is handled. Don't just treat it
- as a regular CC. Use the method that MH uses (enclose original message in
- envelope and deliver to bcc recipient).
-
- Claudio discussed how to handle hidden areas and different domains:
- DD.Dnet will contain the community name.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 8. Claudio presented his experiments with using DNS to store X.400 to
- RFC822 mapping information using DNS to store X.400 routing information
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- A number of WG members volunteered to put routing and mapping information
- into the experimental DNS subtree (under .it).
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 9. Rob Hagens - Status of multi-stack connectivity.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Tony Genovese noted that ESNET was very close to having a production CLNP
- service.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 10. Harald Tveit Alvestrand - International Character sets.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Harald will turn the draft document into a draft RFC.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 11. Milestones:
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- COSINE - reports available on the COSINE fileserver (anonymous FTP from
- nic.switch.ch)
-
- ESNET- A white paper on x.400/x.500 available.
-
- UNINETT - Have tested X.400 to Word Perfect and Banyan gateways. Also have
- contracted with a company to create a user interface for PP that runs
- under X windows. There will also be a PC version. This will be available
- to all educational sites.
-
- XNREN - Has made a fax gateway available.
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 12. NEXT MEETING JULY 13-17th at Boston IETF
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 13. Action Items:
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- John Sherburne (SPRINT) will work with Tony Genovese to figure out how US
- can provide an MTA that has X.25 connectivity.
-
- Urs will ask the COSINE MHS Project Team to submit the address mapping
- table procedures as a draft RFC.
-
- Stef - Start a discussion on X.400 OPS and WG1 lists about ADMD name in
- the US. See section 3.1.2.
-
- Alf will send the updated charter to the list.
-
- Claudio will produce a draft document that will propose a method for using
- DNS to store X.400 to RFC 822 mapping and routing.
-
- Claudio will follow up the MAIL 11 mapping document.
-
- Harald will follow up the International Character set document.
-