Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/93jul/area.applications.93jul.txt

Text File | 1993-09-23 | 10KB | 269 lines

Applications Area

Director(s):


   o Erik Huizer:  [e-mail]
   o John Klensin:  [e-mail]


Area Summary reported by Erik Huizer/SURFnet

The Applications Area currently contains the following working groups:


   o Interactive Mail Access Protocol (IMAP)
   o Internet Message Extensions (822EXT)
   o MIME-MHS Interworking (MIMEMHS)
   o Network News Transport Protocol (NNTP)
   o OSI Directory Services (OSIDS)
   o TELNET (TELNET)
   o Telnet TN3270 Enhancements (TN3270E)
   o X.400 Operations (X400OPS)


The 822EXT and MIMEMHS Working Groups have finished their work and did
not meet in Amsterdam.  The NNTP and TN3270E Working Groups also did not
meet in Amsterdam.

Three BOFs under the Applications Area were held in Amsterdam:


   o Internet Mercantile Protocols (IMP)
   o Networking Multimedia Applications (MULTIAPP)
   o UCS Character Set BOF (UCS)


Internet Mercantile Protocols BOF (IMP)

The IMP BOF was convened to assess community interest in Internet-based
commerce and to explore some concrete ideas on how that might be
realized using existing technology.

The session was comprised of two presentations followed by general
discussion.  Taso Devetzis presented some principles on which protocols
for Internet commerce might be based, followed by a detailed example of
how such principles might be realized using existing Internet technology
(e.g., PEM, MIME). Mitra presented a brief overview of a system being
developed by Pandora Systems to support its commercial offerings over
the Internet.

From the discussion emerged three issues relating to the requirements
for Internet commerce:

                                   1





  1. A protocol that admits bilateral transactions may afford less
     incentive to aspiring third-party mediators than does a framework
     that requires all transactions to be mediated.

  2. An acceptable protocol must support ``real-time,'' interactive use.

  3. An acceptable protocol must be compatible with existing Internet
     applications (e.g., Gopher).


Brief discussion led to general agreement on the second and third
points.  Neither point was regarded as necessarily inconsistent with the
proposed leveraging of MIME and PEM technology.  Time did not permit
full discussion of the first point above.  Erik Huizer, an Applications
Area Director, concluded the meeting by saying that interest in this
topic was clearly sufficient to merit further work but that further
definition of the task would be valuable before chartering a working
group.  To this end, specific topics for e-mail discussion were
identified.



Networking Multimedia Applications BOF (MULTIAPP)

Chris Adie introduced himself as the leader of the RARE Multimedia
Information Services Task Force and described the scope of the BOF,
namely covering networked access to multimedia resources from both the
users' and providers' points of view.  Chris then gave a short
presentation of the probable application categories, the requirements,
the existing systems and standards and the aims he saw for the BOF. Aims
of the BOF were:  to identify issues involved in providing access to
multimedia data; to identify ways to make progress in addressing these
issues; and to agree how to interact with existing groups working in the
area.  A list of issues was then solicited from the floor.  The
discussion arising from this was wide ranging, and it took some time
before suitable areas for IETF involvement were agreed upon.  The
discussion eventually settled on three items:  attempting some pilot
work in mounting (at least) one multimedia application across the
network; working up a draft charter for a proposed IETF working group;
looking at ways of linking existing or emerging standards (RTP, HTML+
were cited as candidates) to define a multimedia access protocol
(loosely described as `Multimedia X'). All of these, particularly the
last, required some study of prior art (SunSoft, DEC, Apple, Microsoft
and Bellcore were cited) and liaison with other groups.



UCS Character Set BOF (UCS)

The UCS BOF discussed the common basis for making possible in Internet
protocols the interoperable use of characters beyond the US-ASCII
repertoire.  The following issues were discussed:

                                   2





   o Alternatives to 10646 BMP for Asian ideographic character sets.
   o More internationalized coding alternatives.
   o Byte-order for languages that do not run left-to-right, and how to
     represent them.
   o Possible feedback and liaison processes from IETF to ISO/IEC
     JTC1/SC2 and requests for inclusion of special sets of characters
     as part of 10646.


The BOF identifyed several items to be worked out within the IETF
working procedures.  Among many of them the most urgent seems to be the
following:


   o A document defining the necessary meta-protocol or process which
     will deal with the items required for the internationalization of
     the networked services.  The document will provide guidance to
     other protocols dealing with these items over the Internet.

   o A document which will specify the byte-ordering of data streams
     coded with UCS to be used in the Internet.  Recommendation
     regarding the particular encoding (e.g., UTF-2 or some variation)
     to be used in Internet protocols.

   o A document identifying the languages and the characters required
     for coding text written in natural language (a sort of ``guidelines
     for services'' such as NIR based on usage of plain text written in
     languages different from English).

   o A document defining a tool for coded character sets conversion to
     be provided within some services such as e-mail (i.e.  conversion
     of character set codes that are outside of the supported character
     repertoire of the receiver).



Interactive Mail Access Protocol Working Group (IMAP)


Twenty people participated.  For several it was their first exposure to
IMAP, so a few minutes were spent summarizing what IMAP is, how it
compares/relates to other alternatives, and what the working group is
chartered to do.  The working group charter and notes from the Columbus
BOF were reviewed and questions were answered.  The status of the
protocol specification and known IMAP implementations was reviewed.  (An
Internet-Draft is being composed that integrates and updates RFC 1176
and the imap2bis extensions.)  Existing practice on the use of IMAP for
news, archive, and document access---in addition to mail---was covered.
Discussion on possible IMAP extensions followed.  Finally, the next
working group meeting, to be held in Seattle on August 30 and 31, was
announced.

                                   3





OSI Directory Services (OSIDS)

   o Document progress was discussed.  The User Friendly Naming document
     is still waiting for RFC Editor action.  ``DSA Metrics'' is
     finished and will be submitted to the RFC Editor as an
     Informational document.

   o Editorial updates will be made to RFC 1278, ``A String Encoding of
     Presentation Address.''

   o InterNIC progress on formalising X.500 deployment on the Internet
     was presented and discussed.

   o There is new work on representing IP information in the DIT. This
     work will hopefully lead to a set of RFCs later this year,
     including an update to RFC 1274.

   o A document on representation of bibliographic information in the
     DIT is progressing.  It is expected to be an Experimental RFC later
     this year.

   o RFC 1384, ``Naming Guidelines for Directory Pilots,'' will be
     updated, based on a draft document by the RARE NAP Working Group.

   o With the InterNIC taking the lead, a new schema management group
     was formed that will look after maintaining the directory schema
     for the Internet.


TELNET (TELNET)

The primary topic of discussion was the environment option.  Originally,
a proposal was made to re-issue RFC 1408 with the VAR and VALUE
definitions corrected to match the BSD implementation.  Additionally, a
document was produced that explained heuristics that could be used to
handle implementations that did not agree.

The attendees briefly discussed the proposed revisions to the charter.
The general consensus is that the group does not want to remain a
clearing-house for TELNET documents.  The charter will be revised to
only cover the authentication work that is going on.

The group reviewed a proposal for a ``Telnet Transfer of Control''
option.  The group feels that there are some security issues with the
document.  Various people will forward their comments directly to the
author.  At this time the group does not wish to formally work on this
specification.

Finally, the group briefly discussed Dave Borman's new option that
merged authentication and encryption.  The initial feedback is
favorable, but Dave needs to complete an initial implementation using
Kerberos IV.

                                   4





X.400 Operations (X400OPS)

   o The session included liaison reports from:  MHSDS (Longbud Project
     status), the RARE MHS Working Group, EMA/EEMA, and Cosine MHS
     (coordination service update).

   o It was recommended that a new working group be formed to handle the
     topic of file transfer over e-mail.

   o The PRMD Requirements document is being held up because some
     technical work is needed on the postmaster document which is a
     required component of this document.  It has been determined that
     with the publishing of the PRMD Requirements RFC that the main
     objectives of this working group will have been met.  With this in
     mind, it is believed that this working group can close down.  The
     group would like this accomplished before the Houston IETF.

   o It was proposed that a working group be formed to work on
     deployment of X.400 within the Internet.

   o It was proposed that a new working group be formed to work on the
     C=US and A=IMX issues.

   o A charter was presented for a working group that would be formed to
     work on ADMD interconnections to the Internet.

   o Status reports were given on GO-MHS support and the RARE X400 88
     pilot.



                                   5