Re: Minutes from Santa Fe

Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM> Wed, 18 December 1991 16:37 UTC

Received: by (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA08349; Wed, 18 Dec 91 11:37:31 -0500
Received: from by (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA08345; Wed, 18 Dec 91 11:37:27 -0500
Received: by (5.64/SRI-NISC1.2) id AA01177; Wed, 18 Dec 91 08:37:11 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: clw
Cc: disi, rlang@NISC.SRI.COM
Subject: Re: Minutes from Santa Fe
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 08:37:10 GMT
From: Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM>
Status: O


Comments and additions are enclosed.  Amend the minutes as you see


p.s. Thanks for the virtual reminder of my action item to obtain "How
to Join a Pilot" and "How to Set-up a DSA" documents for the group.
I'll get busy on this.

From: "Chris Weider" <>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 17:09:27 EST

>   1: We discussed the Atlanta minutes and Chris W. gave an outline of the
> changes proposed to the minutes. Those minutes have now been modified.

Some additional detail: Ruth Lang noted that her comments made on the
Atlanta minutes had not been reflected in the minutes.  She took an
action item to forward these comments to Chris W. (and subsequently

> 2: Ruth and Russ's document was discussed next. They mentioned that they 
> had made the changes which had been suggested at Atlanta, and it was noted
> by Joyce Reynolds that Jon Postel was eager to see this paper advanced to
> RFC status as soon as possible.  Several modifications/additions were also
> discussed. Chris Weider wanted to know why the authors did not flesh out
> entries which had no information provided by the authors but which DISI
> would be able to supply the relevant information; Ruth mentioned that DISI
> should not be responsible for any information in the document; that it should
> all come from the individual authors.  Richard Collela mentioned wanting to 
> see some type of benchmarking information in this document, but after
> Richard, Ruth, Christian Huitema, and Sue Hares discussed it, it was decided
> that there should eventually be a benchmarking document produced. It was also
> decided to ask Ruth and Russ to add a 'date of last update' field to each
> entry, to let the reader determine how recent the information is.

I have enclosed a message below that contains the notes I sent to you
previously regarding this portion of the meeting.  Comparing it with
your notes reveals a few discrepancies.  Resolve them as appropriate.

One minor typo -- Richard's last name is Colella, not Collela.

The most important item to correct in the above paragraph is the
sentence: "Ruth mentioned that DISI should not be responsible for any
information in the document."  -- I believe that my comment focused
only on the implementation descriptions themselves and not the entire
document.  We need to be responsible for those sections written by
Russ and I.  See the Disclaimer section of the catalog.

> 3: Chris, Joyce, and Sergio's document was discussed next. Many people
> had not yet had a chance to read it, but those who did had several 
> comments. The final upshot was that the people who read it thought that
> it should focus less on technical details and more on 'What can it do for
> me??'. Chris pointed out that the focus on technical details was mandated
> to some extent by the necessity of explaining what makes X.500 so powerful,
> but agreed that the focus should and would be shifted.

I didn't jot a note to myself on this, but did you mention a time
frame in which the document would be revised?

> 4, 5, and 6. Chris started discussion of the 'How to join a pilot' and
> 'How to set up a DSA' papers. Several people were of the opinion that there
> should also be a 'X.500 Case Studies' paper written to show people how to 
> set up and use X.500, and illustrate some of the stumbling points in the
> deployment.  After discussion of all three papers, (in addition to the paper
> which had been mentioned on benchmarking), Ruth Lang mentioned that she
> thought that we should not assign any more papers at this time, and that
> she would take an action item to get the European versions of these papers
> and post summaries to the list.  The group seemed to agree with this 
> sentiment, and that's where matters stood at the end of the meeting.

My notes tell me that the case studies were discussed as a potentially
needed section within the "How to Join a Pilot" paper.  (Since we
deferred the issue, making the distinction may not be important.)

Some additional detail: The focus of "How to Join a Pilot" was
discussed.  It was suggested that rather than contain specific
descriptions of steps to take to join a particular pilot, that it take
the form of a pilot catalog and describe points of contact for joining
and additional information.  The writing of a "Pilot Catalog" document
was not assigned.

The group also discussed the creation of an "X.500 Bibliography"
document; i.e. a document that contains pointers to Internet-relevant
technical papers, books, and Internet-Drafts, or RFCs.  The writing of
this document was not assigned.


Return-Path: rlang@NISC.SRI.COM
Received: from by NISC.SRI.COM (5.65/SRI-NISC1.2)
	id AA00817; Fri, 22 Nov 91 14:27:12 -0800
Received: by (5.64/SRI-NISC1.2)
	id AA10936; Fri, 22 Nov 91 14:26:24 -0800
Message-Id: <>
Cc:, rlang@NISC.SRI.COM
Subject: some notes from DISI meeting
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 14:26:23 GMT
From: Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM>


Enclosed are notes regarding item 2 on the DISI 11/18 meeting agenda.
Hope this helps the process of assembling minutes for this meeting.


p.s. Russ -- please send Chris email to add to or correct what may be
wrong in the text below.

- Ruth Lang presented a description of the changes that had been made
to the document, "A Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations."

- Chris Weider suggested that for well-known implementations, that
DISI provide descriptions to fill-in missing sections within
implementation descriptions.  (These are currently marked with a "No
information provided--ed" comment.  Ruth explained that according to
the DISI policy described in the Disclaimer section of the document,
that the contents of the implementation descriptions are the
responsibility of the responsible organization.  In keeping with this
policy, we should not provide input without explicit authorization
from the responsible organization or implementation description
author.  Those in attendance supported this view.

- Christian Huitema suggested the inclusion of benchmarks for
implementations.  Although the idea was well received by the DISI
members, it was felt that time would be needed to develop the
benchmark tests, distribute them to implementors, and gather results
for inclusion in the catalog document.  It was agreed that this
version of the catalog document be issued without benchmarks, but that
the tests be developed and recommended for descriptions included in
the next version of the document.

- Richard Colella suggested that a "Last Modified" section be added to
each implementation description as an way to infer the recency of
information contained therein.  This suggestion was accepted by DISI.

- In summary, "A Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations" will be
amended to contain a "Last Modified" section, and any changes as
directed by implementation description authors.  This version of the
document will be circulated to DISI for review, and subsequently
submitted to the RFC editors as an FYI document.