Internet Info 1994 March/Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso/inet/ietf/x400ops/x400ops-minutes-91nov.txt

Text File | 1993-02-17 | 13.5 KB | 365 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_



Reported by Kevin Jordan/CDC

Minutes of the X.400 Operations Working Group (x400ops)

The section numbers in these Minutes follow the Agenda item numbers in
Alf's proposed Agenda for the Santa Fe meeting.

1.  Welcome

The meeting was chaired by Alf Hansen, and Kevin Jordan volunteered as
secretary.

There were no additional comments against the Atlanta meeting minutes.

Action List from Atlanta meeting


  1. Hagens/Hansen to revise draft RFC and distribute to the Working
     Group.
     Status:  done.
     NOTE: At the Atlanta meeting, we discussed the need for a separate
     document which would describe the strategy for X.400 Operations in
     the international X.400 internet.  In Santa Fe, we decided that
     this document is not needed.
  2. Jordan to update white paper on use of X.500 for support of X.400
     routing and address mapping and distribute to the Working Group.
     Status:  done.
  3. Allocchio/Eppenberger to write a white paper on use of DNS for
     support of X.400 routing and address mapping.
     Status:  not done.  They wrote software instead!  The software will
     be made available to the RARE/COSINE and XNREN communities.
  4. Hardcastle-Kille to update 88->84 downgrading draft RFC and work
     with EWOS to make support of DD.COMMON well defined and mandatory.

     Status:  draft RFC updated.
  5. Yee to do some research into North American groups such as EMA and
     NADF and make recommendations for liaison with these groups.
     Status:  Yee was unable to attend the Santa Fe meeting.  Peter
     plans to email his findings to the Working Group.


2.  IETF X.400 Operations Working Group Business

                                   1





   o Review of new charter.  It was decided that the following changes
     should be made to the charter:


      1. The charter should be updated to include references to other
         documents in progress, e.g.  the Routing and Mapping documents.

      2. The charter should reflect that our work on X.400 operations
         and deployment will not be complete by 12/92.
      3. The charter will probably be updated occasionally as X.400
         operational requirements evolve and as real experience in X.400
         operations becomes more broad.

   o Relations to other groups.  Significant changes were made to the
     draft RFC as a result of comments made against it at the RARE WG1
     meeting which took place shortly before the Santa Fe meeting.
     While most of these changes were technically justified, and the
     authors were given authorization to make such changes at the
     Atlanta meeting, it was strongly recommended that this sort of
     change not be undertaken in the future without the review and
     consensus of the IETF Working Group.  The RFC is supposed to be the
     product of the IETF Working Group.  The IETF Working Group respects
     and welcomes contributions from RARE WG1, but North American
     members of IETF are not eligible to be members of RARE WG1, so they
     are unable to express their views through votes at RARE WG1
     meetings.  Therefore, significant changes to the draft should not
     be made without review and approval of the IETF Working Group
     membership.


3.  Nil (Alf's Agenda lacked an item numbered 3)

4.  X.400 Service Milestones

Each member of the Working Group presented highlights and milestones of
X.400 service provided at his/her home site.

XNREN Project.  More and more sites are joining the XNREN Project.
However, X.400 traffic continues to be relatively light.  Very little
progress has been made on establishing connections to public ADMD
service providers.  The University of Wisconsin has established an
experimental and publicly available X.400-based fax service.  The fax
service imposes some constraints and limitations.  Contact Rob Hagens
and/or Allan Cargille for details.

Norway.  The Norwegian R&D X.400 network currently serves over 5000
active users.  The principal Norwegian WEP carries between 20,000 and
40,000 X.400 messages per month.


                                   2





COS. The Corporation for Open Systems has installed PP and SunLink/MHS
internally.  COS is planning to connect its X.400 service to the
Internet and wants to use OSI CLNS in addition to RFC1006.

Navy.  The U.S. Navy is aggressively pushing X.400 internally.  It is
deploying various types of X.400 gateways.  Transport/network services
provided include X.25 and CLNS.

MERIT. MERIT drove the OSI infrastructure demonstration at Interop '91.
For Interop '91, MERIT managed to use CLNS to interconnect virtually
every regional network of the U.S. Internet successfully.  Sites in
Europe (especially Finland) were also interconnected using CLNS. X.400
mail was successfully exchanged between a variety of sites over Internet
using CLNS. MERIT also provides a gateway between NSFNet and SprintMail.


ESNet.  ESNet continues to implement and deploy X.400 internally.  ESNet
plans to make X.400 mail a production oriented service by January 1,
1992.

CDNNet.  X.400 traffic levels continue to grow.  The primary CDNNet MTA
currently exchanges between 10,000 and 15,000 X.400 messages per day.
CDNNet is subscribed as a PRMD to ADMD Telecom Canada.  CDNNet is
seeking approval to become an ADMD itself.  CDNNet maintains the EAN
X.400 mail software and has recently developed an X Window System based
X.400 user agent.

Slovenia.  The X.400 R&D network in Slovenia currently serves over 2000
active users.

GARR. X.400 traffic continues to increase.  GARR is connected to the
public X.400 networks in Italy.  GARR provides a centralized gateway
service to a variety of other email networks including HEPNet, SPAN,
EARN, and Internet.  GARR supports multiple protocol stacks including
X.25, RFC1006, DDCMP, and CLNS.

NORDUNet.  NORDUNet has initiated a project to improve the reliability
of the email services in the Nordic countries.  Alf has been appointed
as the official NORDUNet Mail Inspector.



5.   Review of ``Requirements for X.400 Management Domains (MDs)
    operating in the Global R&D X.400 Service.''.



5.1 The Document Itself

                                   3





The following revisions will be made to the draft RFC:


  1. The title of the RFC will be changed to:
     ``Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains''
  2. References to ``Global R&D X.400 Service'' will be changed to
     ``International X.400 Service'' throughout the document.
  3. Paragraph 3 of ``Status of this Memo'' will be removed prior to
     publication.
  4. Clarify that ADMD's are invited to join The Service and comply with
     the operational requirements set forth by the RFC.
  5. Section 1.1 - Indicate that conformance to U.S. GOSIP and European
     ENV is required, plus additional requirements as specified in this
     RFC, e.g.  support for DD.RFC-822 is required.
  6. Section 1.2 Terminology should occur before section 1.1.
  7. Section 2.2 - Remove the editor's note.
  8. Section 2.3 - Rewrite this section to state the general multistack,
     multinetwork problem and refer to the companion routing documents
     for detailed solutions.
  9. Section 3.1 - The editors will review this whole section, rewrite
     it, and distribute the revision to the Working Group for review and
     comment.
 10. Section 3.1.6 - Revise the naming recommendations to reference
     relevant RFC's and Implementor's Agreements.  Also, include a
     succinct recommendation (a sentence or two) in the RFC.
 11. Section 3.2 - Remove this section because this RFC applies to '84
     implementations of X.400 only.
 12. Section 3.3.1 - References to section 4.1 should be changed to
     reference section 3.1.
 13. Section 3.3.1.1 - Change ``The Internet Community in the U.S.'' to
     ``The U.S. Internet Community''.  Also, recommend that
     PRMD=Internet be used -only- in the context of addressing the
     generic (i.e.  nearest) RFC1148bis gateway.
 14. Section 3.3 - Refer to RFC1148bis and indicate that conformance to
     it is mandatory.
 15. Section 3.3.2 - Remove reference to annex ``NA-Guidelines''.
 16. Section 3.4 - Add an indication that the static approach to routing
     and address mapping is a short term solution.


5.2 The References

Urs will distribute a new revision of his Routing Coordination paper.

                                   4





The new revision will reflect comments made at the recent RARE WG1
meeting.

Harald Alvestrand will polish his ``Routing Policy'' draft and
distribute it to the Working Group.  It was agreed that this paper
should become one of the RFC's in the X.400 set.  It will be referenced
by the base RFC.

6.  Use of an X.500 Infrastructure For Routing Purposes

Jordan's X.500 white paper was generally well accepted.  However, the
following recommendations were made against it:


  1. As an optimization to the route determination algorithm, take
     advantage of the fact that a failed directory read operation will
     return a distinguished name prefix in the case that part of a
     distinguished name is matched.  This can be used to locate the
     longest match of an O/R name in one read, and a second read can
     then be used to obtain desired attributes.
  2. Update the document to allow for PRMD's explicitly under ADMD's and
     propose that the X.400 tree be rooted under a new object occurring
     under country (rather than rooting the X.400 tree directly under
     country).



7.   Status and necessary actions for implementation of experiments with
    the draft RFC for use of the DNS system for address mapping purposes



Claudio has implemented a scheme for using existing PTR resource records
to store address mapping information.  He has also implemented a scheme
for using MX resource records to store X.400 routing information.

Tools have been implemented for extracting PTR and MX records and
producing RARE tables from them.

The Italian PARADISE Project is also implementing Kevin Jordan's
recommendations for using X.500 to support X.400 routing and address
mapping.

8.  Summary of Conclusions and Actions


P. Yee               Peter will distribute his recommendations for

                                   5





                     liaisons with other groups.


R. Hagens, A. Hansen    The editors will review section 3.1, rewrite it,
                     and distribute it to the Working Group for review
                     and comment.

                     The RFC authors will revise the document in
                     accordance with the comments and conclusions
                     generated at this meeting.  A new draft will be
                     distributed prior to the next IETF meeting, no
                     later than January 15.


J. Geiter            Jishoo will write a recommendation for the
                     construction of X.400 names based upon relevant
                     RFC's and Implementor's Agreements.


A. Hansen            Alf will formally propose to RARE WG1 that mapping
                     coordination procedures be published as RFC's.


All                  The issue of ADMD=`` '' versus ADMD=0 will be
                     discussed via email after the text about this issue
                     from the recent RARE WG1 meeting is distributed.


K. Jordan            Kevin will rewrite his paper on use of X.500 for
                     support of X.400 as a pair of draft RFC's:  one
                     related to use of X.500 for X.400 routing purposes,
                     and one related to use of X.500 for address mapping
                     purposes.

                     NOTE: This action should be reconsidered in light
                     of Steve H-K's comprehensive paper on the same
                     subject.  I propose that we adopt Steve's paper as
                     the basis for further work in this area.


U. Eppenberger       Urs will update his paper on static routing and
                     mapping procedures and present it as a draft RFC.



Other Business

Borka and Harald each made presentations on national character set
issues and suggested alternatives for solving this problem with respect
to X.400.  The Working Group made no conclusions but agreed that this
issue needs further discussion at future meetings.

Future Meetings

                                   6





The next general IETF meeting is scheduled for the week of March 16 in
San Diego, California.  The X.400 Operations Working Group will meet on
March 17 and March 18.


Attendees

Claudio Allocchio        [e-mail]
Harald Alvestrand        [e-mail]
William Biagi            [e-mail]
Ken Carlberg             [e-mail]
Cyrus Chow               [e-mail]
Richard Colella          [e-mail]
Curtis Cox               [e-mail]
John Demco               [e-mail]
Tim Dixon                [e-mail]
Jisoo Geiter             [e-mail]
Tony Genovese            [e-mail]
Robert Hagens            [e-mail]
Alf Hansen               [e-mail]
Susan Hares              [e-mail]
Christian Huitema        [e-mail]
Borka Jerman-Blazic      [e-mail]
Kevin Jordan             [e-mail]
Scott Kaplan             [e-mail]
Jim Knowles              [e-mail]
Walter Lazear            [e-mail]
Jack Liu                 [e-mail]
Linda Winkler            [e-mail]
Robert Woodburn          [e-mail]
Russ Wright              [e-mail]



                                   7