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 MAILSERVER@RARE.NL 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 wg-msg@rare.nl, 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 = 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 (dave@sabre.bellcore.com), himself (huizer@surfnet.nl) and CC the IESG Secretary Greg Vaudreuil (gvaudre@nri.reston.va.us). [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 ealbrigo@cos.com Claudio Allocchio c.allocchio@elettra.trieste.it Harald Alvestrand Harald.Alvestrand@delab.sintef.no C. Allan Cargille cargille@cs.wisc.edu Chris Chiotasso chris@artel.com Cyrus Chow cchow@orion.arc.nasa.gov Alan Clegg abc@concert.net Curtis Cox ccox@wnyose.nctsw.navy.mil Richard desJardins desjardi@boa.gsfc.nasa.gov Tom Easterday tom@cic.net Urs Eppenberger eppenberger@switch.ch Tom Farinelli tcf@tyco.ncsc.mil Osten Franberg euaokf@eua.ericsson.se Jisoo Geiter geiter@gateway.mitre.org Tony Genovese genovese@nersc.gov Arlene Getchell getchell@nersc.gov Alf Hansen Alf.Hansen@delab.sintef.no Steve Hardcastle-Kille s.kille@isode.com Erik Huizer huizer@surfnet.nl Takashi Ikemoto tikemoto@xerox.com Kevin Jordan kej@udev.cdc.com Mark Knopper mak@merit.edu Jim Romaguera romaguera@cosine-mhs.switch.ch Einar Stefferud stef@nma.com Panos-Gavriil Tsigaridas tsigaridas@fokus.berlin.gmd.dbp.de Linda Winkler lwinkler@anl.gov Steven Winnett swinnett@bbn.com Russ Wright wright@lbl.gov 10