CURRENT MEETING REPORT Minutes of the Integrated Directory Services Working Group (IDS) Reported by Linda Millington, Control Data Systems, Inc. The previous meeting's minutes were agreed and there were no changes or additions to the Agenda. 1. Liaison Reports It is preferred that liaison reports be circulated to the mailing list prior to the meetings so that they are accessible and so that there is a record of them. AARNET, Nameflow and Long Bud reports will be circulated to the mailing list. Nomenclator has already been sent to the list. Patrik Faltstrom gave an overview of the WHOIS++ Pilot. This currently consists of a number of projects around the world with 54 servers and 280 fetches (unique domains). The top node of the world allows for searches on WPS information and on URCs. The next version of the Digger code will be available at the beginning of February and will provide language support, Unicode support, searches for CDR blocks and security in the form of Kerberos 4 between both servers and servers and clients. A NSF project at the University of California is currently looking at management tools and scaleability. The expectation is that this project will handle half a million entries. Further information can be obtained from : http://www.bunyip.com/products/digger 2. Papers submitted The ÒBuilding a Directory Service in the USÓ draft will be progressed as an informational RFC. A new I-D with a few minor changes to the text about 1993 Access Control and corrections will be submitted shortly. After discussion and a show of hands, the Working Group decided that the directory paper by Peter Jurg and Erik Huizer should be progressed as a BCP RFC. Harald will take up this matter with the IESG. 3. X.500 Catalogue The authors are currently waiting for implementor descriptions. A deadline of December 31, 1995 was agreed for implementor input with the resulting draft being out by January 15, 1996. There was some discussion about what to do with the existing but out-of-date information in the catalogue. It was suggested that this information should be omitted from the draft. 4. WHOIS++ Catalogue This has not been updated since Stockholm, but implementors should send their information to Patrik Faltstrom by December 31. The draft will be available January 15, 1996. 5. CCSO Nameserver (PH) Architecture The aim of this draft by Roland Hedberg, Steve Dorner, and Paul Pomes is to create a more rigourous description of Ph. No functionality will be added that would break the currently running software. A BNF description of the protocol is being added. Creating new attributes within Ph is currently open. Joann Ordille found over 900 attributes in her research, many of which were language differences and interpretation differences. A minimal subset of attributes is being put together with stricter descriptions. A first draft of this paper has been sent to the registry and the next version will be circulated within the next few weeks. 6. Ph Directory Server Creation and Support By March 1, 1996, Roland Hedberg, Joann Ordille and John Noerenberg will submit a Draft which will give preferred practice and will include a preferred schema. The Nomenclator Report has information on schema attribute distribution. The report may be accessedd at the following Web site: http://netlib.att.com/netlib/att/cd/home/nomen/nomencl ator.html Alternatively, email may be sent to joann@research.att.com More information on Ph can be obtained from the following listserv : info-ph-dev@listserv.cso.uiuc.edu The final decision about whether the Ph work will be FYI or Standards track will be made at the Los Angeles IETF. The current feeling is towards Standards track because of the perceived importance of having well-documented directory services in order to obtain an integrated directory service. There was some discussion about using the Web as a directory service and the problem of unstructured data. 7. X.500 Root Naming Context David Chadwick gave a brief overview of his paper. He is proposing a phased solution to the problem of managing the Root namespace which initially uses DISP rather than DOP. Nexor will implement these changes next year and they will be piloted by Nameflow. It was decided that discussion on the progress of this paper should continue until December 31. It will then move to Experimental. Implementors would then be sought and Harald would approach SC21 with the results. If they still express no interest it would then be decided whether to move it on to the IETF Standards track. 8. Internet White Pages Service There was a lot of debate on what exactly user requirements meant and the resultant agreement was that discussion would be moved to the mailing list. A more focused discuss wil be created by the use of threads in subject lines. The chairs will send out a Table of Contents within a week to get agreement on a structure. The authors would then rearrange their test into the new structure, then it will be reviewed section by section on the list. 9. Schema Requirements Tony Genovese went through the document structure. In addition, the following items are to be discussed further on the mailing list : o Structured fields o Certificate storage Tony would like more input from the Working Group in addition to some examples. Harald will provide input on character sets. 10. Privacy Requirements Barbara Jennings will send a paper she has written on this subject to the mailing list and the Group will decide if they feel this is a relevent topic to be pursued. 11. Quality of Directory Service This discussion was prompted by a Nameflow paper on the quality of directory services. It was decided that this information should be used as input to the user requirements draft. 12. Charter Revision Document timescales and revisions will be incorporated into the Charter. It was also felt that the Charter ought to make the directory experience of the Group more visible to the rest of the IETF in the light of current discussions in the DNS and PKIX areas. 13. Schema Task Force Pressure of work has forced a number of the original group to relinquish their responsibilities to this area. Because it was agreed that this was an important issue, Tim Howes will try and reform the Task Force with new people.