Re: Proposed revised OSI-DS charter

[Edwards Reed <[e-mail]>]

Query -

Where should "Investigate X.400 and SMTP mail routing uses of the
directory service." belong?  In particular, MX record information for
SMTP (proposals already exist, I know), and (more of interest to me)
MTA name bindings for users (so a user's name needn't carry routing
information around with it).

/cn=eer/ou=cin ops/o=xerox/c=us  ==> a list of MTAs on which I have
mailboxes which my mail tool checks, and probably a default listing for
an external gateway accessible by external users.  Obviously, there are
a variety of mechanisms which people use, and which need to be
supported, and those mechanisms need to be formalized with schema and
procedures for their use.  Particular attention should be given to
firewall and hierarchical routing issues and their propagation through
the tree.

Also, do you/we consider the directory information subject solved?  Is
that a proper topic for this WG, or would somewhere else be better?

This Working Group seems poised to cover a lot of ground in support of
all the pilots underway, or about to be underway.

You could certainly ask whether this WG should try to tackle all the
problems outstanding with X.500, including necessary extensions beyond
the 1992/3 draft.  What's important to me, though, is that the
resulting infrastructure be robust enough for both my internal and
external users, and that it scale, and that it be widely used.

Ed Reed
Xerox Corporation