Re: Draft minutes of DISI meeting

Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM> Tue, 27 August 1991 01:00 UTC

Received: by (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA13296; Mon, 26 Aug 91 21:00:52 -0400
Received: from by (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA13292; Mon, 26 Aug 91 21:00:49 -0400
Received: by (5.64/SRI-NISC1.1) id AA07169; Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:29:58 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Chris Weider" <clw>
Cc: disi, rlang@NISC.SRI.COM
Subject: Re: Draft minutes of DISI meeting
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 20 Aug 91 16:44:54 -0400. <>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:29:56 BST
From: Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM>


Based on my notes I found the following differences or additions.  Incorporate
or modify as you feel is appropriate.


> 5) Discussion then turned to the third paper. Many people felt that there 
> were some other papers which needed to be assigned before the 'Advanced Usages'
> paper; one which was agreed upon was a paper 2.5, a 'How to get Connected'
> paper.  Steve Kille agreed to post to the list several papers written
> by European X.500 groups which could be assimmilated and 
> used as a springboard for the new paper; a 'How to join a pilot' paper, and
> a 'How to set up a DSA' paper.

I had noted that Erik Huizer would post references to the available PARADISE
and NORDUNet documents.

Bill Manning raised the topic of storage and retrieval of DNS information.
Discussion on this topic was deferred to the list.

The subject of how to transition to X.500 from a non-X.500 environment was
raised and also deferred to the list.  (I didn't catch who initiated this 

Steve Hotz suggested that DISI identify ways that users want to access data,
i.e., a Directory "wish list."  It was suggested that this information form
the basis for a document, and serve as informational feedback to OSI-DS.

> 4) Paper 2 was then mentioned. The group publicly thanked Russ Wright and 
> Ruth Lang for all the work they'd done on the paper. Several people then 
> mentioned that there were some DUAs which did not appear in the paper, and
> Russ and Ruth stated that they would include them.

In addition to adding entries as you described, the following suggested 
changes were agreed to and will be made by Russ and me given the cooperation
of the associated authors.

	a) Create a separate disclaimer section noting author (not DISI or
	editor) responsbility for implementation descriptions.

	b) Interoperability section should be modified to focus on 
	interoperability at protocol level.

	c) Add a Connectivity Status section that describes which pilots
	the implementation is associated with and lists the number of
	participating sites.  Hardcastle-Kille volunteered to provide
	a description of this section's intent.

The group agreed that after an email review of the updated document, that it
should be progressed to FYI/RFC status.  As an additional action item, 
Kevin Mills volunteered to pursue the availability of a list of implementations
kept by the NIST.