This in only a rough draft - Megan 04/10/92 Minutes, 4th meeting in the IETF X.400 Operations Working Group, IETF San Diego, California, U.S.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MEETING TIME: TUESDAY, March 17, 1992, 1:30- 3:30 PM WEDNESDAY, March 18, 1992, 9:00-12:00 noon, 1:30-3:30 PM ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Review minutes and liaison report ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Liaison report: (given on March 18, 1992) MHS-MD subcommittee of Study Group D of the US Department of State (the administrator of C=US) liaison report from Stef. US backbone will exist as virtual ADMD, all ADMDs must be able to send mail to all other ADMDs. The ADMDs, however, do not have to be directly connected to the other ADMDs. PRMD names do NOT have to be unique in US. You can register with a service provider using ADMD=USBB (rather than the service providers ADMD), provided that you are registered in the national registry. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Action list from last meeting: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- a) EMA (Electronic Mail Association) member present: John Sherburne, SPRINT, gave report: Liaison from EMA (non official) - Full connectivity with commercial world is important. Biggest problem is naming of domains (in particular ADMD='blank'). b) Alf - Tell WG1 that mapping coordination procedures should be published as a RFC. WG1 chair, Urs Eppenberger, at this meeting was notified, and volunteered the COSINE MHS Project Team to submit the coordination procedures as an experimental RFC. c) All other action items done. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Review of "Routing coordination for X.400 MHS services within a multi protocol /multi network environment" by Urs Eppenberger ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Urs gave an overview of his document. Following terms were defined: WEP, MHS Community, MHS subtree. It was noted that all WEPs must know about all other WEPs within a given community. Routing coordination document was created, in part, to facilitate the connection of domains that do not share the same lower layer stacks. Selection of the WEP is determined by the priority and delay parameters in the DOMAIN document. General Discussion Starts: Tony Genovese had a number of operational questions that were not answered in the document. Urs said that was not part of the scope of the document. Urs volunteered the COSINE MHS Project Team to be the global MHS coordinator. The COSINE MHS-Managers meetings will have to be funded by the regional networks after this next meeting. Tony expressed his concern that we may loose global coordination if this group goes away. Urs stated that there should be no more than 100 WEPs per community. Conclusion: Urs document looks good. This WG recommends that this document be published as a draft RFC with the assumption that it will be moved to "experimental RFC" status. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. March 18, 1992- Alf presented his view of "Our Community". ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This community consists of at least three sub-communities: The COSINE Community, North American community, Pacific Rim community. Stef floated an idea - MIX (mail exchange point) should be created to allow mail systems to connect at a (possible virtual) central MTA. Stef also noted that "OUR" is not a good name for a community. Will probably create misunderstandings. Conclusion: We need a single global community. If we need more sub-communities, we will deal with that when the need surfaces. The WG agreed that there should be mandatory support of X.25, RFC1006 and CLNS. THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT EACH WEP IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ALL THREE STACKS. Bilateral agreements must be made where support of one of the mandatory stacks is not present. It was noted that some people may not want to go to the trouble of making these agreements. This (hopefully small) group will have to form a sub-community of our global community. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Review of "Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains" ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The WG discussed the use of ADMD=. The WG decided to add editors note that the semantics of ADMD= are not yet understood. Rob Hagens discussed the following comments from WG1: NOTE: Some editorial changes not included in minutes: See new version of document. Section 1.2: Profiles Which profiles should we support? There was a request to add UK Gosip. It was decided that the section should be phrased more generically. Basic idea is that there are many different profiles. Each country will have to support their own profile. Section 3.1.7: Domain Defined Attributes Request to soften requirement of support of DDAs. Something to effect of "old MTAs don't have to support DDAs; new ones MUST support DDAs". The WG agreed that DDA support should remain mandatory. Request to make automatic return of contents mandatory. The WG decided to add a recommendation to support automatic return of contents. Global substitute "The Internet X.400 Community" for "International X.400 Service". Add a section to the document that defines "Our X.400 Community". Section 2.1: Management Domains Question: "Should a MD be part of a community". Yes is the answer. It was suggested that a new section that specifies the minimum requirement of WEPs be added. Alf suggested that a separate document be created to address this issue. Section 2.2: WEP Should this section be re-written using the "community" concept? NO. Last sentence: Replace "shall operate" with "shall route" WG agreed to add a statement that says that one level of OUs SHOULD be used. Section 3.1.6: Given name, Initials, Surname Add a sentence that we recommend using 1) Given name + surname OR 2) Initials + Surname Add statement that you SHALL NOT use dots between initials. Section 3.5: Minimum statistics/accounting It was decided that we get a list of the data elements that are required. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. WG Business: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Review of Charter: Alf will update and send to list List of documents: Routing document Operational requirements document 7 documents from MHS-DS WG 2 documents form MIME/MHS WG Mapping table update procedure from WG1 MAIL11 Gateway DNS 1148bis 88/84 Downgrading X.400 and International character sets. General discussion of problem with documents originated outside of IETF. There have been problems convincing people to publish these documents as RFCs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Claudio Allocchio presented his paper on "Mapping between X.400 and Mail-11" ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment from Stef to change the way BCC is handled. Don't just treat it as a regular CC. Use the method that MH uses (enclose original message in envelope and deliver to bcc recipient). Claudio discussed how to handle hidden areas and different domains: DD.Dnet will contain the community name. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Claudio presented his experiments with using DNS to store X.400 to RFC822 mapping information using DNS to store X.400 routing information ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A number of WG members volunteered to put routing and mapping information into the experimental DNS subtree (under .it). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Rob Hagens - Status of multi-stack connectivity. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Genovese noted that ESNET was very close to having a production CLNP service. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Harald Tveit Alvestrand - International Character sets. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Harald will turn the draft document into a draft RFC. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Milestones: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- COSINE - reports available on the COSINE fileserver (anonymous FTP from nic.switch.ch) ESNET- A white paper on x.400/x.500 available. UNINETT - Have tested X.400 to Word Perfect and Banyan gateways. Also have contracted with a company to create a user interface for PP that runs under X windows. There will also be a PC version. This will be available to all educational sites. XNREN - Has made a fax gateway available. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. NEXT MEETING JULY 13-17th at Boston IETF ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Action Items: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- John Sherburne (SPRINT) will work with Tony Genovese to figure out how US can provide an MTA that has X.25 connectivity. Urs will ask the COSINE MHS Project Team to submit the address mapping table procedures as a draft RFC. Stef - Start a discussion on X.400 OPS and WG1 lists about ADMD name in the US. See section 3.1.2. Alf will send the updated charter to the list. Claudio will produce a draft document that will propose a method for using DNS to store X.400 to RFC 822 mapping and routing. Claudio will follow up the MAIL 11 mapping document. Harald will follow up the International Character set document.