CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by Jim Romaguera/NetConsult AG
Minutes of the X.400 Operations Working Group (X400OPS)
1. Introduction
- Agenda Approval
- Goal is to define when the documents will be finished.
- Marko Kaotia would like 1 hour.
- Christian Panigil to report on Aconet's ADA arrangement.
- Tool Survey cut, so Marko now 45 mins.
- Minutes Approval
2. Action Items
- 1 - Jim - Done.
- 2 - Erik - (To be reported further on in the meeting)
- 3 - Urs -New directory on SWITCH file server called /new-procedures.
Action is ongoing but not yet completed.
- 4 - Alf - Done.
- 5 - Claudio - Done
- 6 - Claudio - Done.
- 7 - Claudio - Not yet revised due to ongoing discussion on
NameDroppers group.
- 8 - Urs - Done. IESG reviewed and published.
- 9 - HTA - IESG reviewed and now at RFC editor.
- 10 - Marko - New document revised.
- 11 - Stef - IESG has been discussing the document. John & Liam
looked at this report.
Presentation problem with this document. Technically it seems OK.
Trying to make the document less antagonistic. Tony - Well done work
IESG by putting together a team and taking the initiative to
straighten it out. John - Would ask WG to approve IESG removing the
appendix before : WG approves this move.
- 12 - Jim - Aplogies, Allan updated document with US modifications.
An East European change came in about the same time. Document
went back into stack. Will be e-mailed to list today.
- 13 - Allan - Done.
- 14 - Jeroen - Done. Request for 4 or 5 members to put some time
into this report and give some feedback. Change authority
within wgmsg. Jeroen to take the initiative.
- 15 - Alf & Tony - Done.
- 16 - Erik - Done. WG applauds Erik & Tim Dixon for pushing this throw.
3. Liaison Reports
- MHSDS - Have a pilot project Longbud that is doing well. DIT is
getting populated. Some documents describing project & participation
are now available. Tutorial available on MHSDS 16:00 - 18:00 Room O.
Kevin will ask NADF to participate within Longbud.
- RARE WG-MSG
- Character sets
- TF88
- MAIL-11
- Mail based Server
- Action items generated from last wgmsg list that as of yet
have no volunteers:
- Claudio's colleague - MetaMail tool for X.400(84).
- UA capabilities registration - Maybe should be in
MHSDS type area.
- European view on e-mail - HTA volunteered to present this at
this IETF. Suggestion to present this at next IETF plenary.
Should include ADMD <-> Internet interconnection. Also a
good way to launch the new CXII work group. Tony has
volunteered to cross-post wgmsg relevant messages to x400ops.
- EMA / EEMA
- Jeroen has posted his view on what happened at EEMA. Paper
copies will be available for tomorrow's session. APS work
seems good. Doesn't appear any need to duplicate this work.
There is increasing mention of RFC 1006 at EEMA. Internet
project being. Jeroen will ask APS if they are interested
in presenting their work at next IETF and hopefully getting
a feel if this work should go out as some sort of RFC.
- COSINE MHS
- Schedule for new tables (RFC 1465). New tables only from
1st September. Can send in new format tables and SWITCH will
rewrite to old format such that people can keep using the
new tools. Standard logging format document available from
Felix Kugler. Action to submit as I-D. Seems best to make
a list with all X400OPS members but under MADMAN Chair /
MTR's area. Sue (ESnet) will coordinate making a file
server / list for this. MHS Managers meeting at Tampere
Finland, September 13-14.
4. Document Review
- Keep it short. Status and planned changes. Most documents are
non-controversial.
- PRMD document put forward as Info. RFC.
- HTA's document put forward as proposed standard.
- Postmaster document by Allan.
- A=IMX, see above discussion.
- ADMD Evaluation - see above discussion.
- Claudio - a document that needs to be written to a date or else
remove it.
- Jeroen - see above discussion.
- Allan - Postmaster document. Short presentation / background of
concept. Possible that the gateway could recognize 'postmaster'
string and act upon it - this is not very nice but either a
'black-hole' or 'not read' is the alternative. Within document put
it as postmaster@host.domain. Gateways are responsible for what
they pass out to the network. The idea is to differentiate between
'helpdesk' (information requests), 'postmaster' (e-mail / machine
faults). Support for S=postmaster within the GO-MHS is really needed.
This document goes back to the list where hopefully the lively
discussion at the meeting will continue on the list and lead to a
high quality result.
5. DNS (Claudio Allocchio)
- The DNS powers that be are not happy with the extra work that
Claudio's proposal implies. Presentation of some possible
variations. IANA has no way to determine whether national
responsible points nominated are the correct one. It seems that
most vendor built BINDs are broken. It is normal that the vendor
BINDs are replaced with the public domain version which does work.
How well does this approach scale? (reference to quotes on this
subject from minutes from last wgmsg meeting.) Depending on the
performance of the 2 distributed methods ( DNS / X.500) it may mean
that the existing static method (TABLES) remains as a master
submission point and all 3 methods are used in parallel to get the
tables down to the application.
LUNCH
6. E-mail File Distribution (Marko Kaotia)
- Urs will later lead the discussion through the documents such
that Marko can concentrate on being involved within the discussion.
Tony - should this approach be used beyond X400 table distribution
but more general uses? It seems so (Erik). Experimental now within
X400. Then concurrently through to the standards process. Dave
Crocker - enjoys and fully supports the 'File Transfer over E-mail'
idea: "It's a bizarre but wonderful idea". Short lived Work Group
of 1 or 2 IETFs based within the IETF SAP area and which is very
focused is a good idea.
Area - SAP (Dave Crocker),
Chairman - Urs Eppenberger,
Charter - Keep this discussion / work focused as there is an
immediate need for this from an existing user need,
List / Archive - Sue will do list at ESnet. Name is mail-sync@es.net,
Next Meeting - agree this on the list.
Usage such that down / upscaling for 'humans' seems a likely /
possible / maybe good idea.
Issues - MD5 Data Integrity, SEC - see people should look at it,
why do we need more / less, PEM for security, MIME - content type -
fragmentation - compression, Headers and gatewaying, MIME-MHS OIDs &
gatewaying, Addressing, Wrapping, Synchronisation, Bootstrap, New
files, Retix has e-mail based directory synch via DX, SoftSwitch has
e-mail based directory synch via DS. Alpha system is available for
demoing at the IETF.
Discussion point - the experiment involving this concept needs to
be done, then once abit of proven stability is there, then it may be
used within the GO-MHS service (after the discussion of the Charter /
'Future of working group' is finalised).
7. X400 OPS Charter
- Strategy (HTA's points of what should be within a deployment document)
- Service exists now!!!!, and must be documented.
- Service should progress to a quality service that is easy
to join.
- Path should be visible and endorsed by the IETF.
- All steps need operational support. Who gives it?
- Deployment of X.400 over Internet is a document that is needed.
(Go look at the X.500 deployment document for reference.)
- Rewrite charter as per RFC 1430. Erik will help Tony & Alf draft this.
- Start a new working group that is taking over from this working group.
- How the existing documents get handled is uncertain, as a number
of documents reference other documents that might violate existing
procedural rules?
- Shutdown in Houston with the existing documents. Remove document
references in the stable documents (i.e. PRMD Operational
Guidelines, RFC 1465) that are blocking the shutdown. The need for
a postmaster reference in the 'PRMD Guidelines' will be almost a
certain requirement from the IESG.
8. Aconet and ADA ADMD (Christian Panigil)
Presentation summary by Christian Panigil:
- Goals:
- Internet access for ADMD customers.
- ADMD access for AT's Internet domains GO-MHS community.
- Domain Game:
- real PRMDs: Uni X........Aconet -> Aconet pays
- gateway PRMD: ACGATE (DDAs, local mappings) <-> for free
- pseudo PRMDs: ac, co, gv, or routed through ACGATE <-> for
free.
- GO-MHS PRMDs: not reachable by ADMD backbone routed through
Aconet <-> for free
- Requirements:
- No additional cost for Aconet.
- Leased line provided by ADMD
- ADMD provides full connectivity info.
- Aconet generate exception routing for ADMD.
- Support:
- ADMD's customers -> ADMD
- Aconet/GO-MHS Customers -> Aconet
- Aconet is providing Gateway - and Relay-Service on 'voluntary' basis.
- NO QOS guaranties above 'academic reality'.
- Service starts this year in October.
- Norway has also been offering this sort service for about year.
Thursday
9. A=IMX
- A number of IESG members have given comments on this document.
- Introduction from Allan on this A=IMX issue. A US sub-work group of
X.400OPS was working on this. Biggest issue is the registration of
the A=IMX at ANSI. However the operational issues (routing, etc)
still need to be addressed. Non-us PRMDs could register under the
A=IMX. However the addresses of these PRMDs would be C=US;A=IMX.
- Urs - should move onto ADMD/Internet issue as that is also
overlapping with the A=IMX.
- Jeroen - Concern about the overlap of the A=IMX & ADMD/Internet
issue. And maybe the UScentricity of the proposed work group.
- Stef - he thinks that US can not solve this alone. 1st step is US,
then per country a task force.
- Harald - I believe your point was covered yesterday we believe.
- Erik - Not convinced that this really belongs at the IETF but not
sure where this belongs. Discussion with Vint Cerf & ISOC & ISEG
about whether this initiative could be included within a proposed
Internet Operational Group. Uncertainty as to where this work group
should go. It's quite new ground.
- Harald structure of how to proceed;
- Longbud, GO-MHS, ADMD Interconnection, C=US register
- Question is how to proceed with allocation & stopping of
overlap of work. Suggestion - Longbud, GO-MHS,
ADMD/Interconnection are international work groups but
C=US should be a sub-task of probably GO-MHS.
- C=US should be a sub-group of one of the other work groups.
- Conclusion - work group to do this work.
- Where this politically gets put in IETF / IOTF is still open.
- What the split of the work groups is still open.
- Stef believes that Harald's idea of the work group structure is OK.
10. ADMD Interconnection BOF
- Presentation of the proposed charter by Tony Genovese.
- Jeroen - Is the timescale for this too optimistic?
-Tony & Jim - make progress or close down.
- Paul (AT&T) - What should the relationship between the connection
scenarios be? Addressing & Naming issue to be included in the
work group?
- Tony - RFC 822 e-mail service providers to be included?
- Stef - There is a need to consider the different 'business
models' of the Internet & the Commercial world.
- Jeroen - Don't connect with non-RFC 1327 scenario.
- Allan - pointers to IANA & appropriate other areas of interest
need to be included.
- Urs - Base routing & addressing issues need to be tackled by the
GO-MHS work group.
- Harald - ISOC discuss registration & mapping rule authority issues.
- Erik - Description of the work group is very specific in the first
3 chapters. Liaisons are OK. Goals & Milestones - need to be more
concrete in the focus of the document. Need to identify the name
of the authors for the documents. Recommendations instead
of Requirements.
- Urs - Wait for EEMA paper and then base the 2 proposed documents
on this paper.
- Marko - 3 documents. 1 overview paper linking the 2 other papers.
- Harald
- Problem statement is probably the EEMA document.
- Doc 1: Models of Interconnections between the Internet
and commercial mail service providers.
- Doc 2: Recomm. for X.400 interconn.
- Doc 3: Recomm. for RFC 822 interconn.
- Stef - sender keeps all is the onl y model.
- Paul - Stef's model is right on target. Lobbying within his company.
- Tony & Jim volunteer to jointly editor the Model's document (Doc 1).
- Please send in as many ADMD / Internet connection models to Jim
as possible.
- Allan editor of listing connection models document.
- Refine charter on list.
- Allan - C=US needs to be done but it is national. It needs to have
standing and thus a formal Work Group is needed. Make a IETF
regional work group. Or put the work group under some US centric
report.
11. TF88 (Erik Huizer)
- A bunch of guys were formed to look into the X.400(1988) issues.
- CEC project to look into the issue.
- 2 documents generated.
- Goals - Convince funding people to invest money type
document. (But that would have meant a too
bureaucratic type of document.)
- People who want to migrate to X.400(1988), technically
capable and relevant issues needed to be addressed and thus
that's how this document came about.
- Main paper's deadline is July 1993.
- Jeroen's paper can be finalised this month.
- Tony - imply a global purpose and usable within any e-mail community.
How to migrate documents to reference GO-MHS influence. How to move
these documents into the Internet world? Erik - They will be RTRs and
thus RFCs.
12. Support of GO-MHS/Mail Based Server - What's Going On- (Erik Huizer)
- Result of how to get global funding is;
- Meeting within September / October with,
- Dai Davies of Dante (RARE OU)
- PAP - X.400 coordination should not be limited to
'owners' of DANTE. This quagmire needs to be
sorted out.
- Mail Based Servers
- Previous group was too broadly focused and that needs to
be changed this time around.
- John Kleinson is leading this group.
- Model of this 'Machine' so far has 4 areas.
- LISTSERV command language.
- Start now.
- Maria - Don't make a 'myth' of LISTSERV
functionality. In her opinion it is not so
good.
(other areas later)
- Mail Distribution
- Mail & NNTP are linked together.
- Client / Server management of lists
- Mail Headers (based upon Jeroen's existing document)
13. Gateway to LANs
- Action - Tony to bring the issue onto the list.
14. AOB
- GO-MHS / Management Procedures Document Changes (Urs)
- Something in place now on the server (see above). About 2
months old.
- But action is not yet complete. Discussion moved to list.
Attendees
Claudio Allocchio Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.trieste.it
Harald Alvestrand Harald.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Per Andersson pa@cdg.chalmers.se
George Chang gkc@ctt.bellcore.com
Robert Cooney cooney@wnyose.nctsw.navy.mil
Thomas DeWitt tdewitt@osi.ncsl.nist.gov
Maria Dimou-Zacharova dimou@dxcern.cern.ch
Urs Eppenberger eppenberger@switch.ch
Osten Franberg euaokf@eua.ericsson.se
Tony Genovese genovese@es.net
Tim Goodwin tim@pipex.net
Christoph Graf graf@switch.ch
Alf Hansen Alf.Hansen@delab.sintef.no
Jan Hansen Jan.Hansen@teknologi.agderforskning.no
Jeroen Houttuin houttuin@rare.nl
Erik Huizer Erik.Huizer@SURFnet.nl
Ola Johansson ojn@tip.net
Kevin Jordan Kevin.E.Jordan@cdc.com
Peter Jurg jurg@surfnet.nl
Thomas Kaeppner kaeppner%heidelbg.vnet@ibmpa.ibm.com
Peter Kaufmann kaufmann@dfn.dbp.de
Paul Klarenberg klarenberg@netconsult.ch
Bruno Koechlin Bruno.Koechlin@inria.fr
Arnold Krechel krechel@gmd.de
Erik Lawaetz erik.lawaetz@uni-c.dk
Paul Lustgarten Paul.Lustgarten@att.com
Ignacio Martinez martinez@rediris.es
Ronny Nilsen Ronny.Nilsen@usit.uio.no
Christian Panigl christian.panigl@cc.univie.ac.at
Paul-Andre Pays pays@faugeres.inria.fr
Jim Romaguera romaguera@netconsult.ch
Marjo Rottschaefer
Hugh Smith h.smith@cs.nott.ac.uk
Suzanne Smith smith@es.net
Eftimios Tsigros tsigros@helios.iihe.rtt.be
Russ Wright wright@lbl.gov
Peter Yee yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov