Editor's Note: Minutes received 8/12

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_


Reported by Allan Cargille/UWisc

Minutes of the X.400 Operations Working Group (X400OPS)

First Session

Alf Hansen Chaired the meeting.  Allan Cargille volunteered to take
Minutes.  The Agenda was modified to discuss Working Group status and
the status of the Wisconsin NSF X.400 Project and the Cosine MHS
Project.

Alf distributed the new Charter before the meeting.  It was agreed that
the proposed new time schedule for the documents would be revised after
discussion of the documents.  Note:  this was not done in the meeting,
and should be done on the mailing list.  Action - Alf

Other issues discussed during the first session included:


  o Change control.  The IESG (and IAB ?) agreed that change control
    for RFC1327 (the latest version of mapping between X.400 and RFC822
    mail) was assigned to the RARE Working Group on Mail and Messaging.
    This prompted the following discussions:

     -  Is it OK for IETF RFCs to be assigned to another group?

     -  How will people in the x400ops Working Group be able to
        participate in further revisions of this document?

     -  How will this be publicized ?

    It was clarified that the RARE-MSG Working Group is an open Working
    Group.  Members of the x400ops Working Group are welcome to join
    the mailing list and participate in the Group.  Here's how to join:

        Send a message to [email protected] with the following text in
        the BODY of the message (NOT the subject).

        SUBSCRIBE WG-MSG Your-given-name Your-surname

        This will automatically subscribe you to the list.  An automatic
        reply will be sent back to you.

        The address of the mailing list itself is [email protected], or
        /S=wg-msg/O=rare/PRMD=surf/ADMD=400net/C=nl/.

  o There was also discussion about the number of mailing lists which
    deal with X.400 issues.  Often messages are posted to multiple
    lists.  It was recognized that having these multiple lists is a

                                  1





 pain, but this Working Group is unlikely to be able to change the
 situation.  It was recommended that when an initial message is
 posted to multiple lists, the message should clearly identify *one*
 list on which the follow-up discussion should take place.

o Action items from last March 92 meeting:
 a.  John Sherburne (SPRINT) will work with Tony Genovese to figure
 out how US can provide an MTA that has X.25 connectivity.

  -  Tony reported that accepting ADMD = <single space> is a problem
     for Sprint.  He did not know if that is for technical,
     political, or financial reasons.
     [action] Tony continue to work on a WEP which is accessible
     over public X.25.

  -  Ed Albrigo from the Corporation for Open System (COS) gave a
     report on their X.400 activities.  They are working on the
     following:

     1. Establishing direct network-layer connections to the
        Internet.  They plan to route both IP and CLNP.

     2. Establishing X.400 links which connect the OSINet X.400
        community to the GO-MHS community.

     3. They are planning to go to complete ``electronic-only''
        communication with ten COS member companies by December
        1992.
     Ed confirmed that COS will comply with current RFCs and
     recommendations for the GO-MHS community.
     It was clarified that COS uses X.25 in their private OSINet
     network, but that is a private network that is not connected to
     public X.25.

  -  There was a discussion about connections to ATTmail.  Internet
     RFC822 mail users should be able to send mail to all ATTmail
     users.  However, the ATTmail <--> Internet mail gateway
     produces bad addresses, so mail is often un-replyable.

 b.  Urs will ask the COSINE MHS Project Team to submit the address
 mapping table procedures as a draft RFC. - Done.
 c.  Stef - Start a discussion on X.400 OPS and WG1 lists about ADMD
 name in the U.S. See section 3.1.2.  [of March 1992 Minutes]

  -  Not done.

  -  Note that the rare-wg1 mailing list has been succeeded by the
     wg-msg list (see section 2 above).

                               2





     [action] Stef start this discussion.  [action] Someone email
     Stef to start this discussion.  [done]
     See related discussion of this in Agenda item 5.

 d.  Alf will send the updated Charter to the list.  - Done
 e.  Claudio will produce a draft document that will propose a
 method for using DNS to store X.400 to RFC 822 mapping and routing.
 - Done.
 f.  Claudio will follow up the MAIL 11 mapping document.  - Done
 g.  Harald will follow up the International Character set document.
 - Done

o Status of X.400 Operations
 a.  Allan Cargille discussed the status and future of the NSF X.400
 Project.  The project has been running since August, 1990 and is
 now toward the end of the initial grant.  The project has operated
 the experimental PRMD ``XNREN''. Fifteen to twenty sites have
 registered as members of this PRMD, but only approximately five are
 currently exchanging X.400 traffic.  The project has acted as a
 coordination point for U.S. entries in the RFC987/1148/1327 mapping
 tables.  The project also served as a beta site for several PP
 releases, and developed and contributed software to support the
 Fujitsu dexNET 200 fax modem in PP. The project is operating a
 primary MTA running PP 6.0 on a dedicated DecStation 3100/Ultrix.
 Some sites, including Wisconsin, are running the IBM/Wisconsin Argo
 X.400 software, which includes a UA. The project has also acted as
 a Well-Known Entry Point (WEP) to the Cosine MHS Project (see
 below).  We are seeking an extension of the grant to continue
 supporting a stable U.S. WEP and to participate in the ongoing
 research work to develop a stable X.400 infrastructure.  Without
 continued funding, our project will end at the end of this calendar
 year.
 b.  Jim Romaguera presented an overview of the Cosine MHS Project
 at SWITCH (Switzerland).  That project began in (January 1991 ?)
 and continued work begun by the RARE MHS Project Team.  They
 coordinate the academic and research X.400 service in Europe.  They
 have finished 80 percent of their goals for the current project
 period, which ends at the end of this calendar year.  The project
 supports international X.400 connections between all Western
 European countries, as well as Greece, Slovenia, Lithuania, the
 United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, China,
 India, and the Republic of Korea.  Some countries have multiple
 networks participating in the service.  Most European participants
 have private connections to one or more commercial ADMDs.  Some are
 purchasing value-added services (such as fax gateways) from ADMDs.
 Several project participants have online services available (via
 telnet or over X.25) to translate between X.400 and RFC822
 addresses according to the current mapping rules.
 The exact future of the project is unclear, but it is expected that

                               3





they will continue.  It is likely that the future project will be
coordinated by the RARE Operational Unit and will be contracted
out.
The project team is still working on several projects.  They plan
to have a daily RFC1327 mapping table update tool operational by
the end of this year.  They are working on evaluating publicly
available X.400 implementations.  They plan to produce a catalog of
existing X.400 implementations.  They have done work on evaluating
ADMDs and plan to report on this (verifying connectivity, etc).
They plan to produce a tutorial and overview on RFC1327.  They have
done work on evaluating international X.400 connections, and are
working on tools to automatically process a common statistics
format.  They are also working on a connectivity tool which will be
based on sending mail to echo servers and evaluating the results.
Lastly, they operate a file server with lots of documents.  You can
reach the fileserver via anonymous ftp to host ``nic.switch.ch''.
Discussion:

-  It was recommended to refer to RFC1292 (a catalog of X.500
   implementations) for X.400 product evaluations.

-  Will this information on implementations be released as an RFC
   ?

-  There is a question of liability when producing such
   evaluations.

-  It was recommended that vender and user comments about
   implementations be placed in separate documents.

c.  Stef reported on the current work of the MHS-MD study group on
ADMD/PRMD naming.  By way of review, Stef covered the history of
connections between the U.S. Internet and commercial email
services.  Vint Cerf was the founder of MCI Mail and then went to
CNRI. He concluded agreements on behalf of the Internet with
MCIMail, ATTmail, G.E. Information Services, and CompuServe (and
possible others) that are ``sender keeps all revenue'' agreements.
There was also discussion about what internal protocols these
services use.  All operate gateways between RFC822 and their
internal protocol.  Several problems were discussed.

-  If the service is using a poor or nonstandard gateway, then the
   addresses coming out of the gateway are messed up.

-  People did not know of any connections between U.S. commercial
   ADMDs.

-  There are no connections between the U.S. Internet X.400
   community and commercial ADMDs.

                             4





Current MHS-MD status.  Commercial ADMDs have been arbitrarily
selecting their own names, and then arbitrarily naming PRMDs under
their ADMD. There is strong feeling that these existing (ADMD,
PRMD) name pairs must be valid in the future.  Any new registration
procedure must support these existing names.  The Group is also
working on a structure for a U.S. ADMD backbone, which does not
mean a specific ADMD. Currently the string ADMD=USBB is being used
to refer to such a structure.  Stef cautioned us that the ``USBB''
name is just a placeholder and is likely to change to some other
(as yet undefined) text string.  PRMD names could then be
registered under this ``ADMD=USBB''. There are still unresolved
questions about how the USBB should be routed and supported.
Stef proposed that the U.S. Internet declare itself as an ADMD.
This could be justified because at present, all the other ADMDs are
self-declared as well.  Stef argued that there is currently no
regulation of US X.400 service providers, so each ADMD is more or
less making up their own rules as they proceed.  Many people are
making lots of assumptions.  One has been that the INTERNET does
not qualify to be an ADMD, and the that other ADMDs would block its
attempt to assert that it is an ADMD.
Discussion:

-  The issue of connecting to the U.S. ADMDs is not an issue of
   naming, it is an issue of service agreements and charging.  The
   routing can be worked out.

-  Connections over X.25 will probably be necessary to connect to
   the commercial ADMDs, although many US carriers are moving to
   offer IP service, and to interconnect with the INTERNET.

-  The Internet ADMD could offer to provide RFC1327 gateway
   services to the commercial ADMDs.  That way the gateways would
   be operated according to existing agreements and
   recommendations and would generate ``good'' addresses.

-  If the Internet succeeds in defining itself as an ADMD, then
   the other C=US ADMD service providers can no longer use the
   excuse that they ``cannot pass ADMD-ADMD traffic via the
   INTERNET PRMD''.

-  If the commercial services were interested, the Internet ADMD
   could play a role as a relay between them.  [Note - this would
   not necessarily require commercial traffic to flow across the
   research Internet.]

There was a proposal to decide on the matter at this meeting.
There was heated argument that the issue had not been discussed
before the meeting, and should be discussed more in a wider forum
and on the mailing list.  It was agreed that Stef would write an
internet draft proposing to create an ADMD=Internet [action].  If

                             5





    approved in the future, this paper could evolve into an RFC.
    The Working Group recommended that each country should write an
    Internet Draft describing the national solution for X.400
    addressing of Internet addresses.  Stef's draft could be used as a
    template for other countries' Internet Drafts.  The result will in
    the end be (if the drafts are approved) a series of RFCs.  [This
    paragraph supplied by Alf Hansen.]

  o Future U.S. Internet X.400 organization - not discussed beyond the
    above information.


Second Session


  o Continuation of Connections to ADMDs Discussion.  - Steve H-K.
    proposed generating a document that addresses the issue of ADMDs
    and how they are connected to the R&D world (or ``Internet'' to
    coin a phrase).  The contents of this document should be something
    like:

     -  ADMDs presently connected to the Internet (or R&D world, same
        thing, as I'm talking about the global Internet).

     -  Policy restrictions on such connections ie.  are they available
        for free & for anyone on the Internet, can R&D people relay via
        a connected ADMD to 3rd party ADMDs , etc.

     -  Whether the ADMDs are using RFC 1327 gateways & the global
        mapping tables

     -  Which PRMDs these ADMDs support - ADMD connectivity between
        themselves.  - anything else that fits in to the above context.

    Goals are to:

     -  Stimulate ADMDs to deploy well run ADMD to Internet
        connections, preferably by using R&D operated gateways.

     -  Document the PRMDs reachable via ADMDs and of course the ADMD's
        connectivity to other ADMDs.

    Jim Romaguera (wearing the hat of NetConsult AG, not the Cosine MHS
    Project Team) volunteered to write a draft document [action].
    [notes in this (cont'd) section courtesy of Jim R.]

  o Document Review - in general, detailed comments are not included if
    a new version of the document will be released.
    a.  ``X.400 use of extended character sets'' (Harald Alvestrand).

                                  6





Discussion.  Harald will update the document and release the
updated version as an Internet draft [action].  The draft will be
discussed at the upcoming RARE Character Set and RARE Messaging
meetings.  These comments will be presented at the next IETF
meeting, and the document will be finalized.
b.  ``Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains in the
GO-MHS Community'' (Hansen/Hagens).  Comments were taken on the
document.  The document will be revised and a new Internet Draft
will be released [action].
There was discussion about what kind of RFC this document should be
released as.  People felt that it should be a requirement that
X.400 domains should support the ``postmaster'' address in the same
manner as RFC822 domains do.  It was proposed that a very short RFC
be drafted which explains the need for supporting ``postmaster''
addresses.  This short postmaster RFC will then be advanced in the
standards track.  Allan Cargille volunteered to write the RFC
[action].  It will use the recommendations from the recent Cosine
MHS Managers meeting as a starting point.  It was pointed out that
to support the introduction of X.400(88), both S=Postmaster and
CN=Postmaster must be supported.
The revised Hansen/Hagens paper cannot be progressed as an RFC
until the Eppenberger routing paper and Cargille Postmaster paper
are also ready to be submitted, because it references those
documents.  The document may also have to be modified based on the
group's recommendations for C=us/ADMD=Internet.
c.  ``Routing coordination for X.400 MHS services within a
multi-protocol/ multi-network environment'' (Urs Eppenberger).
Changes to this document were discussed in light of a recent
submission by Panos Tsigaridas, ``MHS Information Exchange Format''
(MHS-IEF). Panos' paper recommended using the same basic
information and routing algorithm as the Eppenberger document, but
providing a syntax and structure so that this information could be
easily placed into X.500 under well-known places.  Further
information already stored in X.500 could easily be extracted by
tools and translated into the proposed text format.  These text
tables could then by exchanged the ``old-fashioned'' way (E-mail).
The desire to support X.500 must be weighed against the fact that
this new document format is needed immediately and in fact is
already being introduced in the Cosine MHS Project.  Changing the
document format would introduce delays due to discussion and take
longer to become operational.  It was agreed that Urs, Panos, and
Steve H-K. would meet to see if minimal changes could be made to
the Eppenberger document which would make it easier to store the
information in X.500.  Steve reported that they agreed that Panos
would propose a set of detailed ``short term'' change requests to
Urs's document [action].  A revised document should be sent out,
which should be approved via email and then submitted as an
experimental RFC [action].
d.  ``Using the Internet DNS to maintain RFC987/RFC1148 Address
Mapping Tables and X.400 Routing Informations'' (Allocchio, Bonito,

                             7





    & Giordano).  All three tables will be stored under the domain
    ``.x400.arpa''.  Change control will still be centralized -- the
    tables will still be collected and managed by the Cosine MHS
    Project Team.  The use of the DNS tables will be described in a
    separate document [action].  Mapping conventions are used to
    represent the RFC1327 table entries in a format that is legal for
    the DNS. Claudio will produce a new version of the document, and
    distribute it to the DNS and x400ops mailing lists [action].  If
    consensus is reached, the document will be submitted as an
    Experimental RFC.
    e.  OSI area procedures.  Erik Huizer requested that to progress a
    document in the OSI area as an Internet Draft, people should send
    email to Dave Piscitello ([email protected]), himself
    ([email protected]) and CC the IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil
    ([email protected]).  [Note - this information should
    probably be sent to all the OSI area working groups.  [action]]
    Erik also reported the following procedures for IETF OSI working
    groups [actions]:

     -  He will create a mailing list for these Working Group Chairs.
     -  He will distribute each message to him from higher IETF people
        to Working Group Chairs (Chairpersons).

    There was also discussion about what classes of RFCs there are.
    RFCs *not* on the standards track can be classified as
    ``Informational'' or ``Experimental''.  RFCs on the standards track
    proceed from ``Proposed Standard'' to ``Draft Standard'' to
    ``Standard''.  [Note - is this documented in an RFC?] It was also
    pointed out that RFCs cannot reference Internet Drafts, but they
    may reference any class of RFC.

  o Major Operation Problem - not discussed.

  o Review of Action Items - deferred to mailing list, due to time.
    See below.

  o Any Other Business, and plan for next meeting - Erik Huizer (OSI
    Area Co-Director) proposed to resume the ``old'' meeting schedule
    for the OSI area at the next IETF. Other than that, the next
    meeting schedule not discussed.  Erik will distribute this new
    schedule [action].
    We decided to have the next x400ops meeting at the next IETF
    meeting in Washington DC, U.S.A., during the week Nov.  16-20,
    1992.


Revised Summary of Action Items


Allan Cargille         Distribute draft Minutes.  - Done.

                                  8





Alf Hansen             Revise timetable for documents on new Charter by
                      discussion on the list.
                      Update Operational Requirements document and
                      release as an Internet Draft.
Tony Genovese          Continue to work on a WEP which is accessible
                      over public X.25.
Einar Stefferud        Start discussion on mailing lists about U.S. ADMD
                      naming issues.  - Done.
                      Write an Internet Draft proposing to create
                      ADMD=Internet.
Someone                Email Stef to start this discussion.  - Done.
Jim Romaguera          (NetConsult AG) Generate draft document that
                      addresses the issue of ADMDs and how they are
                      connected to the R&D world.
Harald Alvestrand      Update document on extended character sets and
                      release as an Internet Draft.
Panos Tsigaridas       Provide a set of detailed ``short term'' change
                      requests to Urs' routing document.
Urs Eppenberger        Release revised version of routing coordination
                      document (if there are any changes).  Hopefully
                      get consensus on mailing list about the document
                      and submit as an RFC.
Claudio Allocchio      Produce new version of the X.400 DNS paper and
                      distribute it to the x400ops and DNS mailing
                      lists.  If consensus is reached, submit document
                      as Experimental RFC.
                      Produce new document explaining how the X.400 DNS
                      tables should be used and distribute to x400ops
                      list.
Erik Huizer            Distribute information on the procedure for
                      progressing a document in the IETF OSI area to
                      all area mailing lists.
                      Create a mailing list for IETF OSI area Working
                      Group Chairs.
                      Distribute working group meeting schedule for OSI
                      area for next IETF meeting.



Attendees

                                  9





Ed Albrigo               [email protected]
Claudio Allocchio        [email protected]
Harald Alvestrand        [email protected]
C. Allan Cargille        [email protected]
Chris Chiotasso          [email protected]
Cyrus Chow               [email protected]
Alan Clegg               [email protected]
Curtis Cox               [email protected]
Richard desJardins       [email protected]
Tom Easterday            [email protected]
Urs Eppenberger          [email protected]
Tom Farinelli            [email protected]
Osten Franberg           [email protected]
Jisoo Geiter             [email protected]
Tony Genovese            [email protected]
Arlene Getchell          [email protected]
Alf Hansen               [email protected]
Steve Hardcastle-Kille   [email protected]
Erik Huizer              [email protected]
Takashi Ikemoto          [email protected]
Kevin Jordan             [email protected]
Mark Knopper             [email protected]
Jim Romaguera            [email protected]
Einar Stefferud          [email protected]
Panos-Gavriil Tsigaridas [email protected]
Linda Winkler            [email protected]
Steven Winnett           [email protected]
Russ Wright              [email protected]



                                 10

You are viewing proxied material from ftp.icm.edu.pl. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.