INTERIM_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by Steve Kille/UCL
OSIDS Minutes
Agenda
o Agenda, Revised
o Minutes of previous meeting
o Liaisons: RARE WG3, NIST, NADF, AARN, ANSI
o Replication
- Replication Requirements
- Replication Solutions
- Network Addresses
- Presentation Addresses
o APIs for the Pilot
o User Friendly Naming
o Domains and X.500
o Representation of Network Info in X.500
o DSA Naming
o Building Internet Directory/Strategy
o Operational Pilot Status
o Monthly Reports on Pilots
o New working groups: Operations, User Support
o Internet Schema
o Naming Guidelines
o Naming for Internet Pilot
o Security
o Directory Assistance Protocol
o Quality of Service
o Date and Venue of next meeting
The meeting was opened by Steve Kille at 9:10am on February 12, 1991.
The agenda was slightly revised and massively reordered. Steve thanked
Richard Colella and Peter Whittaker for producing the minutes. He
reported on the status of some of the action items at the last meeting.
The formatting of the documents has been improved. The
``Infrastructure'' document met with some difficulty in forwarding as an
RFC. Steve was asked to produce a separate ``Strategy'' document and to
revise the RFC. Steve contacted Al Grimstad to check on a user friendly
naming related proposal, and found that this is no longer relevant.
There were no corrections to the minutes.
1
Liaisons
RARE WG3
Steve reported on this meeting which took place in Brussels in January.
They discussed the activities of our IETF-DS group. Their next meeting
is April 16-17 in Utrecht, Holland. They meet three times per year.
They are very interested in getting more US participation. Future
meetings are in July, and also October 31- November 1. Can the IAB find
funding for international travel for IETF members? Steve will look into
the funding question with appropriate people. European meetings usually
have 1-2 representatives from each country. They would also like
representation from the FOX project.
NIST
Stuart Cain reported on the Directory SIG meeting in December. They
discussed implementation agreements for replication and access control.
They would like to see the requirements from our group. NIST is working
from the current CDAM. There is already a stable implementors agreement
based on the 1988 CCITT recommendation. The new spec is expected by the
end of the year. The next meeting will be in March. Steve has replied
informally to the NIST liaison to encourage coordination between the two
groups and also to share our documents on replication requirements and
solution. The sense of this was agreed to by the group, and it will be
used to generate a formal liaison response. The NIST group is concerned
with ``freezing'' their agreements based on a DIS version of the
standard, and will be working to avoid that kind of discrepancy.
North American Directory Forum
Marshall Rose reported that the last meeting was in October, before the
last IETF-DS meeting. The next meeting is in March, after this meeting.
Australian Academic Research Network
Steve received a liaison statement from George Michaelson. Standards
Australia is working on X.500 naming and addressing standards. They
will send people to the IETF some time this year. They have not been
able to participate in this group due to lack of funds.
ANSI US Directory Ad Hoc Group
Roy Van Dorn (HP) reported that this group met last week. They are
bringing ballot comments to ISO. Subordinate references will be
replicated, according to the latest draft standard. Replicating
2
cross-references will not occur. Hoyt Kesterson is the ISO Rapporteur.
Skip Sloan will be the head of the US delegation. Steve will send them
the replication documents from our group. There will be one more US
meeting in March for ballot comments. The liaison of the group's
documents to ISO will be done through ANSI by Paul Koski. Access
control and replication are US priorities. Some of the schema document
will get into the 1992 standard. The definitions of attributes will be
more like 1988. The four types of object classes will continue.
Subtrees and partial entries within subtrees can be replicated. A
completeness flag is included in replication. Searches on attributes
that don't exist will be referred for further lookup. The unit of
replication is an entry, not an attribute within an entry.
o Replication
- Replication Requirements
It was agreed that this Internet Draft (Replication
Requirements to Provide an Internet Directory Using X.500) be
progressed to an RFC.
- Replication Solutions
There was substantial discussion of this paper. Marshall and
Steve revised the text during the meeting and redistributed the
document. Marshall suggested that the title be changed to
include the changes to Distributed Operations as well as
replication. This suggestion was agreed to by all. A number
of changes were suggested to make the document more clear.
There was a suggestion to include a figure describing knowledge
replication. None of the proposed changes require discussion
at a further meeting, and Steve agreed to send a revised
document out to the list on Monday (February 18). The group
will respond within one week with any comments. After that the
Internet Draft (Replication to Provide an Internet Directory
Using X.500: A Proposed Solution. However the title may be
changed.) will be progressed to an RFC.
- Network Addresses
There were a few comments from the IAB regarding the Telex
kludge. It was agreed that this Internet Draft (An Interim
Approach to Use of Network Addresses) be progressed to an RFC.
- Presentation Addresses
It was agreed that this Internet Draft (A String Encoding of
Presentation Addresses) be progressed to an RFC.
3
o APIs for the Pilot
Ruth Lang said that this was an important area and would like to
see suggestions for APIs (application programming interface). The
only comment received so far on the list was from Peter Whittaker
(BNR) about object management support in XOPEN. There was a
discussion of the XDS agreements. Peter Mierswa said that DEC
participated in XDS. The user-friendly and object-oriented aspects
of XDS will cause applications to be large. It is difficult to
extend the XDS object set. There are other technical drawbacks,
but it was agreed to by a number of parties. DEC will support the
XDS API but also a more functional layer. Quipu does not support
XDS. XDS and object management documentation is available from
Omnicom. It was felt that APIs did not fit into our group's
charter. We may want to make recommendations but then move on to
the technical infrastructure. This group is also not to manage
projects or pilots.
o User Friendly Naming
Peter Mierswa tried to find a common syntax set with the OSF DCE
naming (based on unix filesystem syntax) and the proposed X.400
annex for business card OR address format (uses semicolons and
slashes, which evolved out of the RFC 987 work). However there was
no such syntax in common and Peter gave up. The algorithm in this
document is useful based on experience, though there may be scope
for experimentation. It was noted that name space organization
affects efficiency of searches. For example Cambridge University
uses many levels of OU. It is recommended in the Naming Guidelines
document (see section 18) that pilots be laid out so that this user
friendly naming scheme works reasonably. It was agreed that this
Internet Draft (Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly
Naming) be progressed to an RFC.
o Domains and X.500
UCL has done some work in implementing this scheme. There is a
tool to do a white pages lookup based on a domain address. This is
an experimental service. The general appropriateness of
representing domain name system information in the Directory was
discussed. This is viewed as controversial. The X.500 version of
DNS may have be usable for other functions than those currently
offered by the DNS, such as browsing. Mailbox records are included
in the DNS, but are not widely used. Peter Mierswa said that it
would not matter if this was not submitted as an RFC. Steve
disagreed with that and would like to progress the work. Tim Howes
suggested that we submit this with a disclaimer that it is
experimental. Steve would like the IAB to discuss these issues.
Jose Garcia-Luna felt that security should be discussed in this
paper. It was eventually agreed that this Internet Draft (Domains
and X.500) should be progressed as an RFC.
4
o Representation of Network Information in X.500
Mark Knopper and Chris Weider gave a presentation on some work in
progress at Merit, which will become part of the DARPA/NSF
sponsored Field Operational X.500 (FOX) project. They have entered
the network contacts part of the whois data into the @o=Internet
part of the White Pages DIT. New object classes have been defined.
Bill Nowicki noted that putting all of the IP network numbers into
a single location in the DIT will not scale well. It was suggested
that the network number entries be located within the owning
organizations. This would obviously require much more
participation in the X.500 projects. For now the net numbers can
be entered in a separate tree under o=Internet and eventually these
entries will just be pointers to the master network entries. Steve
proposes another solution to this in the Domains and X.500 paper.
It is scalable, but also requires more work to bootstrap. There
will be further cooperation with SRI, ISI and PSI to allow the rest
of the NIC's data to be entered into X.500. There were a number of
useful suggestions on how the network information could be stored
in the DIT. It was recommended that Merit produce an internet draft
to document this effort, both work in progress as well as long term
design. Chris agreed to do this by March 7. He will take the
scalability issues into account.
o DSA Naming
The current South American wildlife names don't seem to be
descriptive enough! The solutions outlined in this paper solve
some operational problems with quipu-based pilots. Peter pointed
out that the section on multinational organizations does not solve
the problem. There were several suggestions for modifications, and
discussion of this will be necessary at the next Working Group
meeting. It was felt that after that, this Internet Draft (DSA
Naming) can be progressed to an RFC.
o Building Internet Directory/Strategy
The infrastructure Internet Draft was held up in protracted
discussion regarding how to submit RFCs. Steve wrote a new
strategy document. It was agreed that APIs should be mentioned in
this document. The ``strategy'' was removed from the I.D. and so
that was renamed to a very long name beginning with ``Overall
Plan''. The strategy document was agreed to in principle but will
not be forwarded at this time. The Overall Plan Internet Draft was
agreed to be progressed to an RFC again.
o Operational Pilot Status
- PSI Pilot
Marshall reported that there are about 70 organizations on the
5
US pilot. Growth has been linear since the pilot began. ISODE
6.8 interim release is due out by the end of the month. It is
a very stable and higher performance version. It will have Tim
Howes' mods to quipu, and also the Directory Assistance
Protocol (which allows splitting the DUA between two different
hosts). FRED is faster now. There is a Macintosh DUA offered
by PSI as shareware. A source license is available similar to
the Nysernet SNMP license. The PSI pilot only allows DSAs to
be connected via IP (and now CLNP). The quality of X.25 in the
US ``provides pneumatic inward pork-pressure via narrow
flexible tubing.''
- COSINE Pilots
Steve reported that 19 out of 20 countries in COSINE are
running X.500 pilots. The COSINE P2.1 pilot has been renamed
as PARADISE, and has officially started. Its manager is David
Goodman. ULCC has an operational facility to replace Giant
Tortoise. Their plan is to support international pilots until
the end of 1992. France has a research pilot based on quipu
and also a commercial pilot based on Pizarro. Xtel and the
Dutch PTT are involved in PARADISE.
o Monthly Reports on Pilots
It is felt that the operational pilots should distribute status
reports on a monthly basis. The FOX project is interested in
coordinating the US report. Ruth Lang contacted Jon Postel at ISI
about this and Jon volunteered ISI to produce the reports. Some
FOX mailing lists will be set up to help coordinate the US report.
David Goodman, the PARADISE manager, will integrate this into the
international report. FOX and PARADISE will agree on timescales
for ensuring that this comes out each month. Reports will be
timely, with noncontributors marked as ``no report for XXX''. This
international report will be sent out as a part of the Internet
Monthly Report and to a separate list for those not interested in
other aspects of the IMR. The reports should be on ``The State of
the DIT''. Organizations should be queried for their activities.
Marshall gets regular statistics reports from the US DSAs. The
Canadian pilot is operated by the University of Toronto.
o New Working Groups
- X.500 User Support Working Group
Chris Weider volunteered to chair a new working group. Steve
will talk to the IETF area coordinators and suggest that the
new group be jointly in the OSI and User Services areas.
Several of the group participants were interested in joining
the new group. The first meeting will be at the next IETF.
6
Chris distributed a draft charter and several comments were
made. Chris will talk to Joyce Reynolds and Dana Sitzler, to
see whether it would be reasonable to model the group after the
NISI Working Group. Perhaps the new group should be called
DISI (pronounced ``dizzy''). The group would provide a
documentation package for sites, as well as a center of
expertise for X.500 issues.
- X.500 Operations Working Group
There was some interest in forming such a group but it was felt
that this should wait until the activities of the main IETF-DS
group come to an end, or at least go into ``maintenance mode''.
It was viewed that the group will only last for one more
meeting with the same high level of activity. After that the
operations group will be formed. Marshall Rose and Chris
Weider were involved in discussing the charter of the new
group.
o Internet Schema
Marshall suggested that the name of the Internet Draft (COSINE and
Internet Naming Architecture) be changed from ``naming
architecture'' to ``schema''. This was accepted. There were
comments on this document at the RARE WG3 meeting. The
textEncodedORAddress attribute was deprecated by OSI purists, but
some members felt it was useful in the pilots. This Internet Draft
was agreed to be progressed to an RFC.
o Naming Guidelines
Steve introduced this Internet Draft and explained that it sets out
some guidelines for how to lay out a pilot DIT. It is a follow-on
to annex B of X.521. Marshall mentioned that the T.61 character
sets for international symbols once were a problem but work now in
quipu. Peter mentioned that this is not a solution for
multinational organizations. It is viewed that this is a difficult
problem, and that the acceptable solutions should be documented.
There needs to be a definition of ``multinational organization''.
HP would like to see a single ``mount point''. There was a
discussion of organization naming strategy. Marshall suggested
that the names be fully descriptive to avoid later, possibly legal,
conflicts. The naming authorities must enforce unique names within
the DMD. Long names were recommended. Marshall mentioned that a
small DIT depth makes browsing less effective. It is not useful to
define conformance rules for a guidelines document. Conformance is
useful for a given national pilot. Steve and Paul Barker will edit
the document and distribute to the group. At the next meeting it
will be proposed that the Internet Draft (Naming Guidelines for
Directory Pilots) be progressed to an RFC.
7
o Naming for Internet Pilot
Marshall gave a presentation of a paper he and Einar Stefferud had
written to be presented at the NADF, US-CCITT-Study Group D, and
ANSI as well as to this group. The problem is that there are no
OSI numbering authorities in the US, but they are needed for pilots
to advance to a production stage. ANSI has accepted over 500
applications for OIDs under 1.2.840, but due to legal problems have
not assigned any. Numbers are not a problem for ANSI but names
are. The only legal method would be to assign the name and then
publish the fact in the Federal Register with the reserve to revoke
on a 6-month challenge procedure basis. GSA has been assigning
NSAPs under AFI/IDI=47/0005, only for federal agencies. IANA has
assigned several hundred OIDs under 1.3.6.1.4.1 for internet
network management use. US-CCITT-SG-D is trying to make a national
decision on naming, but only for an X.400 ADMD/PRMD registry and
not for X.500. Possible naming universes are geographical,
political or community. Civil authorities are the best choice as
it gives a familiar and undisputed structure. However collisions
in RDNs must be avoided. The proposal suggests using the numeric
code assigned by ANSI for the RDN itself. This was heavily
disputed, but as Marshall noted it would be legally defensible.
The consensus was that we should fix ANSI rather than using numeric
RDNs. Marshall and Stef believe that their presenting this
proposal to the four groups will force a national decision. The
proposal went on to recommend use of numeric codes for states and
populated places. Naming of OSI entities was included, and there
was a suggestion that non- OSI entities should get names too (e.g.,
SNA, TCP/IP applications). Steve suggested that this be made into
an Internet Draft but not a standard. Marshall will make the
changes suggested by the group before the NADF presentation in
March. He will "lean heavily" on ANSI to begin assigning names.
Beth Summerville is ANSI's registrar for the naming authority
function.
o Security
Peter Yee's paper was revised since the last meeting. There were
not many changes due to lack of comments at Boulder. Marshall said
that it will be necessary to consult with the IETF Security Working
Group before progressing this document. Peter will contact Steve
Crocker to get help on proper security terms and concepts.
Marshall suggested splitting the discussion in the paper between
authentication (simple now, strong later), and authorization
(access control lists). Paul suggested including an ACL to control
access for searching. Steve suggested that this should become an
Internet Draft with title Security Requirements for X.500 in the
Internet. There should be a companion document for Security
Solutions, and this should reference the 1992 CCITT document. A
problem at MIT is that they want to limit searching their
organizations to return data only if less than n entries. HP wants
to disallow searching their organization entirely. Peter will
revise the document and send it out to the list by March 1.
8
o Directory Assistance Protocol
Marshall wrote an RFC describing a protocol used by PSI's Macintosh
DUA client. It documents existing practice and is not a standard.
The server is part of ISODE. He characterized the protocol as
``horrid''. Tim Howes has also been working on a Macintosh DUA
with a different protocol. Tim will write an RFC for his DAP
pretty soon.
o Quality of Service
Steve submitted an informal writeup to suggest that QOS attributes
be added to the schema to represent the advertised quality of DSA
services in the pilots. This was thought to be a good idea and
there were no objections to including this in the Schema document.
o Notable Actions, Dispositions and Promises
- RFC Progression
The following documents were recommended to be progressed to
RFC status:
Replication Requirements to Provide an Internet Directory Using
X.500 (section 6a)
Replication Solution and Distributed Operations (section 6b)
An Interim Approach to Use of Network Addresses (section 6c)
A String Encoding of Presentation Addresses (section 6d)
Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User-Friendly Naming
(section 8)
Domains and X.500 (section 9)
Overall Plan (section 12)
Internet Schema (section 16, and including QOS item in section
21)
Naming Guidelines for Directory Pilots (section 17)
- Action Items
Strategy document will be revised by Steve (sections 4, 12).
The issue of travel funding will be investigated by Steve
(section 5a). A formal response to NIST will be drafted by
9
Steve (section 5b). The replication documents will be sent to
ISO via ANSI and Paul Koski by Steve (section 5c). Jon Postel,
for the FOX project, will set up a mailing list, and produce
monthly reports coordinated with PARADISE and the Internet
Monthly Reports (sections 10 and 14). Chris Weider will start
up the new Directory Information Services Infrastructure
Working Group (section 15a). Chris and Mark will write an RFC
on representing network infrastructure information by March 7
(section 10). Marshall Rose will lean heavily on ANSI to
assign organization ids and names (section 18). The security
document will be revised by March 1 by Peter Yee (section 19).
o Date and Venue of Next Meeting
There will be no OSI-DS meeting at the March IETF. The next meeting
will be after that, to be decided on the list. A possibility is a
video conference, or alternatively a face to face meeting either in
Ann Arbor or on the east coast in May or June. The choice depends
on online discussion of the working drafts. Given some comments,
it might be appropriate to wait until July. Steve will poll the
group after the next round of editing.
o Thanking the Host
Ruth Lang and SRI International were thanked for their excellent
services including a lunch.
Attendees
Stuart Cain scain@hpindeg.cup.hp.com
Cyrus Chow cchow@orion.arc.nasa.gov
J.J. Garcia-Luna garcia@sri.com
Arlene Getchell getchell@nersc.gov
Barry Holroyd berries@eng.sun.com
Tim Howes tim@d.cc.umich.edu
Steve Kille S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Mark Knopper mak@merit.edu
Paul Koski koski@hpindeg.cup.hp.com
Ruth Lang rlang@nisc.sri.com
Peter Mierswa mierswa@smaug.enet.dec.com
Bill Nowicki nowicki@sun.com
Alex Pepple alexp@bnr.ca
Marshall Rose mrose@psi.com
Chris Weider clw@merit.edu
Russ Wright wright@lbl.gov
Peter Yee yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov
10