Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/x400ops/x400ops-minutes-92nov.txt

Text File | 1993-02-17 | 18KB | 400 lines

Editor's Note: Minutes received 11/30/92

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_



Reported by Alf Hansen/SINTEF

Minutes of the X.400 Operations Working Group (X400OPS)

Welcome and Administration

Harald Tveit Alvestrand volunteered to take Minutes.  Tony Genovese,
ESNet, has volunteered to be the new co-Chair of the X400OPS Group now
that Rob Hagens is no longer able to participate.

The delegates presented themselves.

The Agenda was accepted, with the provision that some items under point
three should be shuffled around a bit.  They are presented below in the
order in which they were discussed.

Action List from Boston

Most of the actions were marked ``done'' in the Agenda, and received no
comment.  Those that were discussed were:


   o Tony Genovese - continue to work on a WEP which is accessible over
     public X.25.
     Tony reports:  This item was tied in with ADMD connectivity and
     Corporation for Open Systems (COS), and was discussed at a meeting
     the evening before.  Most probable is that an ADMD offers the
     connectivity, after ISOC based negotiations.
     The issue of an X.25 WEP in the US part of the GO-MHS community is
     still open.  Nobody is willing to do it without further study of
     the financial implications and funding arrangements; UNINETT will
     continue to provide X.25 to TCP relay for the time being.

   o Harald Alvestrand - update document on extended character sets and
     release as an Internet-Draft.  [done on Thursday before meeting]

   o Allan Cargille - write draft document about postmaster addresses
     and release as an Internet-Draft.  [done - distributed at the
     meeting]

   o Claudio Allochio - produce new document explaining how the X.400
     DNS tables should be used and distribute to X400OPS list.  Claudio
     promises that it will be ready for the next meeting.


Erik Huizer distributed copies of Rare Technical Report (RTR) versions
of 1327 and 1328, and explained some of the procedures governing the
RTR/RFC relationship.

                                   1





Marko Kaittola presented his ideas on mapping table updates using E-mail
to carry them.  Ideas presented, generally positive reception.

Review of Documents

Document OPS-1   ``Operational Requirements for X.400 Management
                 Domains in the GO-MHS Community''.
                 Discussion on section 2.2:  Change ``X.500'' to
                 ``Directory'', to allow both DNS and X.500 to be used?
                 - input from Marko Kaittola.  Decision:  Reword
                 paragraph to show that ONE directory service is
                 required, and that the Group has chosen X.500 as the
                 strategic direction.
                 The ``postmaster'' document will be inserted as a
                 reference if it is accepted at this meeting, otherwise
                 as ``ongoing work''.
                 Discussion about the existence of the GO-MHS community
                 document; decision is that it is not part of this
                 document.  It may be distributed later as an
                 informational RFC.
                 ACTION: Allan Cargille and Jim Romaguera will write the
                 GO-MHS community document together.
                 DECISION: Alf Hansen makes the editorial changes,
                 publishes it again as an Internet-Draft, and asks to
                 have it published as an Informational RFC. Time limit:
                 December 15th for the revised version, January 1st is
                 the closing date for any comments before RFC
                 submission.  Will also be published as an RTR.
                 A sigh of relief was heard that this document seems to
                 near the end of its journey.
OPS-2            ``Using the Internet DNS to maintain RFC1327 Address
                 Mapping Tables and X.400 Routing Informations''.
                 Claudio Allocchio (the author) suggests that it should
                 be split into 2 parts, the ``routing part'' and the
                 ``mapping part''.  This makes it easier to progress the
                 ``mapping part'' at once.  Also, a change to the
                 placement of the ``gateway table'' should be made.
                 These are suggestions from the RARE WG-MSG Group.
                 There is a problem with the use of MX or PTR records
                 for mapping:  MX records support wildcarding, but do
                 not return a wildcard count, and may cause a secondary
                 query for a (nonexistent) A record; the PTR records do

                                   2





                 not support wildcarding at all.  This will be left to
                 discussion with the DNS people.
                 It is clear that further work is required on the
                 operational procedures for managing the mapping tables
                 when both static tables and DNS entries are used.
                 ACTION: Claudio Allocchio will organize a pilot to get
                 operational experience from the use of this document.
                 DECISION: Part 1 (Mapping) of the document will be
                 ready before January 1st; deadline for comments is
                 January 15th; submission Experimental Protocol is
                 expected by January 30th.
                 Part two is an attempt to code the Urs Eppenberger
                 documents into DNS records, and is not intended for
                 humans to read!
                 Timescales for this document depend on the timescale
                 for the routing document; expected date of an updated
                 version is two weeks after the final version of the
                 routing document (OPS-3).
                 OPS-4 and OPS-5 are expected to be noncontroversial, so
                 they are taken before OPS-3.
OPS-7            Assertion of A=INTERNET
                 The discussion reflected the generally chaotic nature
                 of name registration within the US X.400 community, and
                 also reflected discussions that had taken place under
                 another meeting on Monday evening.
                 John Sherburne of Sprint thinks that it is so important
                 to achieve the interconnectivity that it is possible to
                 sort out all the charging problems later on;
                 interconnectivity will come first.
                 Allan Cargille clarifies that ADMD services will NOT be
                 free, even when ADMD='' or ADMD=INTERNET is used.
                 (TANSTAAFL). Comment for clarification:  TANSTAAFL =
                 ``There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch''.
                 Tony Genovese suggests that the referenced documents be
                 cited as ``work in progress'' rather than RFCs, so that
                 they will not hold up the clarification of the naming
                 aspects.
                 The feeling of the Group was that the discussion of
                 this item was NOT fruitful or leading towards
                 consensus.
                 DECISION: There will be formed a Design Team to define
                 the necessary documents for US operation of the
                 Internet/GO-MHS community.  This Design Team will
                 report back to the main Group when its conclusions are
                 ready for review.


Liaison with Other Bodies

                                   3





U.S. MHS MD Subcommittee:  Ella Gardner of MITRE, Chair, MHS MD
Subcommittee presented the output of MHS MD, which has completed the
following documents for the U.S.:


   o Behavior Guidelines for Voluntary Participation within the US
     National X.400 MTS.

   o Registration Procedures for the United States Joint Registration
     Authority (US-JRA).

   o Operating Guidelines for Registrars of MHS Management Domain Names
     Used within the US.


Ella Gardner gave an orientation about the status of naming authorities
in the US.

A call asking for someone to operate the US national ADMD/PRMD register
has gone out.  Submissions are expected before December 1st with the
hope that it will be operational in the First Quarter of 1993.


OPS-4            ``Mapping between X.400(1984/1988) and Mail-11 (DECnet
                 mail)''.
                 This has been discussed before, and there is little
                 controversy about it.
                 Possible controversial point:  It specifies (in an
                 appendix) how gateways between RFC-822 and DECNET mail
                 should work.  It is not clear that this recommendation
                 will be followed at some large DECNET sites, but one
                 can hope that it will be followed.
                 DECISION: Will be submitted as an Experimental Protocol
                 within three weeks from now.
OPS-5            ``X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets''.
                 Harald Alvestrand presented the status of this
                 document.
                 DECISION: Will be submitted for Informational RFC -
                 Last Call will be sent to the Working Group on December
                 1st, with closing date December 14th.  (The dates will
                 be adjusted after consulting with the RARE TC and
                 WG-MSG)
OPS-3            ``Routing coordination for X.400 MHS services within a
                 multi protocol / multi network environment''.
                 Marko Kaittola raised the question of whether secondary
                 WEPs should accept connections from all WEPs by
                 default, or whether manual setup of the connections was
                 required.

                                   4





                 DECISION: Add the text to paragraph 4.5:  ``Secondary
                 WEPs may require a testing period''.
                 Steve Hardcastle-Kille raised the point of versions of
                 the documents; that documents should have version
                 numbers.
                 DECISION: A version number for the format will be added
                 to all the documents defined.
                 Jim Romaguera explained that it was NOT intended to
                 switch the operational service to the new document
                 format at once, but to test it in a pilot first.
                 Jim Romaguera asked that the START date should be
                 mandatory, not optional.
                 DECISION: Accepted.
                 The discussion of the document took longer than
                 expected, and there were several people who felt that
                 the discussion was not finished when the end of our
                 alotted time arrived.
                 DECISION: Jim Romaguera compiles a list of outstanding
                 issues and posts it to the list.  The list should be
                 closed on Dec 4th; the final decisions should be taken
                 by Dec 18th.
OPS-9            ``Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations''.
                 DECISION: To be resolved by Dec 11 on the list; it will
                 either be accepted, or the reference will be dropped
                 from OPS-1.
OPS-6            Procedures for Maintaining RFC-1148bis Gateway Mapping
                 Tables.
                 The latest version had not been provided before the
                 meeting.
                 DECISION: To be discussed on the list; will be moved
                 forward as an Experimental Protocol before December
                 18th.
OPS-8            ``Evaluation of ADMDs and Integration aspects with
                 respect to the R&D messaging community'', (c) RARE 30th
                 October 1992.
                 This document was not the one expected in the Boston
                 meeting.  An article about the subject will appear in
                 the EMA bulletin; the article will be circulated.
                 DECISION: The original OPS-8 has disappeared.  The ADMD
                 evaluation should be refined and published as an
                 Informational RFC (and RTR). Target date:  December
                 15th.  Responsible:  Jim Romaguera.
New Document     Survey of X.400 products, by Jim Romaguera.  Based on
                 the X.500 survey form; Jim asked for contact addresses
                 for X.400 products.  This is part of the COSINE MHS
                 work, and the results of the survey will be distributed
                 later on.

                                   5





New Document     Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 for closed
                 communities.
                 Steve Hardcastle-Kille presented it briefly.  It will
                 be presented as an Informational RFC because it cannot
                 be carried forward as Standards-Track quickly enough,
                 the ISODE Consortium needs to implement the function,
                 and it is better to have published the way this is done
                 by the ISODE consortium than have them deploy the
                 solution widely and NOT document it at all.
                 Some controversy was detected about the document, but
                 the meeting was already running beyond its allotted
                 time.


Any Other Business and Plan for Next Meeting

Next meeting:  The Spring 1993 IETF will be held in Columbus, Ohio,
March 28th - April 2nd.

Summary of Actions and Decisions


Claudio Allocchio   Produce new document explaining how the X.400 DNS
                    tables should be used and distribute to X400OPS
                    list.
                    Will organize a pilot to get operational experience
                    from the use of OPS-2.
                    Part 1 (Mapping) of the document OPS-2 will be ready
                    before January 1st; deadline for comments is January
                    15th; submission as an Experimental Protocol is
                    expected by January 30th.
                    Timescales for Part 2 (Routing) of OPS-2, now called
                    OPS-2b, depend on the timescale for the routing
                    document; expected date of an updated version is 2
                    weeks after the final version of the routing
                    document (OPS-3).
                    OPS-4 will be submitted as an Experimental Protocol
                    within three weeks from now.
A. Cargille         Write the GO-MHS Community document together.  [J.
                    Romaguera]
                    OPS-9 to be resolved by December 11th on the list;
                    it will either be accepted, or the reference will be
                    dropped from OPS-1.
Jim Romaguera       Compile a list of outstanding issues regarding OPS-3
                    and post it to the list.  The list should be closed
                    on December 4th; the final decisions should be taken
                    by December 18th.

                                   6





                    The ADMD evaluation (OPS-8) should be refined and
                    published as an Informational RFC (and RTR). Target
                    date:  December 15th.
Alf Hansen          Make the editorial changes, publish OPS-1 again as
                    an Internet-Draft, and ask to have it published as
                    an Informational RFC. Time limit:  December 15th for
                    the revised version, January 1st is the closing date
                    for any comments before RFC submission.  Will also
                    be published as an RTR.
Harald Alvestrand   OPS-5 will be submitted for Informational RFC -
                    Last Call will be sent to the Working Group on
                    December 1st, with closing date December 14th.  (The
                    dates will be adjusted after consulting with the
                    RARE TC and WG-MSG).
Urs Eppenberger     Add the text to paragraph 4.5 in OPS-3:  ``Secondary
                    WEPs may require a testing period''.
                    A version number for the format will be added to all
                    the documents defined in OPS-3.
                    The START date should be mandatory, not optional in
                    OPS-3.
List                OPS-6 to be discussed on the list; will be moved
                    forward as an Experimental Protocol before December
                    18th.
Design Team         There will be formed a Design Team to define the
                    necessary documents for U.S. operation of the
                    Internet/GO-MHS community.  This Design Team will
                    report back to the main group when its conclusions
                    are ready for review.



                                   7





Attendees

Claudio Allocchio        [e-mail]
Harald Alvestrand        [e-mail]
C. Allan Cargille        [e-mail]
George Chang             [e-mail]
John Dale                [e-mail]
Daniel Fauvarque         [e-mail]
Ned Freed                [e-mail]
Ella Gardner             [e-mail]
Tony Genovese            [e-mail]
Alf Hansen               [e-mail]
Steve Hardcastle-Kille   [e-mail]
John Hawthorne           [e-mail]
Erik Huizer              [e-mail]
Barbara Jennings         [e-mail]
Kevin Jordan             [e-mail]
Marko Kaittola           [e-mail]
Mary La Roche            [e-mail]
Sylvain Langlois         [e-mail]
Edward Levinson          [e-mail]
Triet Lu                 [e-mail]
Bob Lynch                [e-mail]
Karen Petraska-Veum      [e-mail]
Jim Romaguera            [e-mail]
John Sherburne           [e-mail]
Einar Stefferud          [e-mail]
Panos-Gavriil Tsigaridas [e-mail]
Brien Wheeler            [e-mail]
Russ Wright              [e-mail]



                                   8