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