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 Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it
Harald Alvestrand Harald.Alvestrand@delab.sintef.no
C. Allan Cargille cargille@cs.wisc.edu
George Chang gkc@ctt.bellcore.com
John Dale jdale@cos.com
Daniel Fauvarque dfauvarq@france.sun.com
Ned Freed ned@innosoft.com
Ella Gardner epg@gateway.mitre.org
Tony Genovese genovese@es.net
Alf Hansen Alf.Hansen@delab.sintef.no
Steve Hardcastle-Kille s.kille@isode.com
John Hawthorne johnh@tigger.rl.af.mil
Erik Huizer huizer@surfnet.nl
Barbara Jennings bjjenni@sandia.gov
Kevin Jordan kej@udev.cdc.com
Marko Kaittola marko.kaittola@funet.fi
Mary La Roche maryl@cos.com
Sylvain Langlois Sylvain.Langlois@der.edf.fr
Edward Levinson levinson@pica.army.mil
Triet Lu triet@cseic.saic.com
Bob Lynch lynch@dsteg.dec.com
Karen Petraska-Veum karen@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov
Jim Romaguera romaguera@cosine-mhs.switch.ch
John Sherburne john.sherburne@sprintintl.sprint.com
Einar Stefferud stef@nma.com
Panos-Gavriil Tsigaridas Tsigaridas@fokus.berlin.gmd.dbp.de
Brien Wheeler blw@mitre.org
Russ Wright wright@lbl.gov
8