New version of the PRMD requirements paper
hagens@cs.wisc.edu Fri, 14 February 1992 22:33 UTC
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29073; 14 Feb 92 17:33 EST
Received: from mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29048; 14 Feb 92 17:33 EST
Received: from calypso.cs.wisc.edu by mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu with SMTP (PP) id <04610-0@mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu>; Fri, 14 Feb 1992 16:31:46 +0000
Received: from localhost by calypso.cs.wisc.edu with SMTP (PP) id <24104-0@calypso.cs.wisc.edu>; Fri, 14 Feb 1992 16:31:33 +0000
To: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu, RARE-WG1@verw.switch.ch
Subject: New version of the PRMD requirements paper
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 16:31:24 -0600
From: hagens@cs.wisc.edu
Message-ID: <9202141733.aa29048@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US>
Folks, Here is a new version of Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains for your enjoyment. The postscript version is available by anonymous FTP to mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu, pub/ietf/prmdreq.ps. This version reflects the changes made during the review at the Santa Fe IETF meeting of the x400ops working group. There are change bars on this version. Pay careful attention to the Status of the Memo section so that you understand the changebars. You really want to read the postscript version of this document because deleted text is shown in italics which doesn't appear in the ascii... The postscript will be available from the cosine filestore in a day or so. Allan Cargille will bring copies to the wg1 meeting next week. Rob and Alf =============================================================================== Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains February 14, 1992 Robert A. Hagens C=US; ADMD= ; PRMD=XNREN; O=UW-Madison; OU=cs; S=hagens hagens@cs.wisc.edu Alf Hansen C=no; ADMD= ; PRMD=uninett; O=sintef; OU=delab; S=Hansen; G=Alf Alf.Hansen@delab.sintef.no $Revision: 1.9 $ Status of this Memo This document specifies a set of minimal operational requirements that shall be implemented by all Management Domains (MDs) in the International X.400 Service. This document defines the core operational requirements; in some cases, technical detail is handled by reference to other documents. The International X.400 Service is defined as all organiza- tions which meet the requirements described in this docu- ment. This document is currently a working draft. It does not carry any implications of agreement on policy. When agree- ment is reached, it will be submitted to the RFC editor as an informational document. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Please send comments to the authors or to the discussion group: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu C=us; ADMD= ; PRMD=xnren; O=UW-Madison; OU=cs; S=ietf-osi-x400ops Beginning with version 1.9, this document contains change | bars which indicated changes that have been made. Change | bars only reflect the changes from the previous version. | Change bars appear to the right of the text, as in this | paragraph. Deleted text will appear in italics with change | bars to the right. For example, this sentence is an example | of deleted text | INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 1] INTERNET--DRAFT Pervasive changes are not denoted with change bars. However, | they are noted at the beginning of the document. Pervasive | changes from version 1.8 to 1.9 are: | + | The phrase "International Service" has been replaced | with "International X.400 Servce". | + | References have been cleaned up. | + | Section 2.3 has been extensively rewritten INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 2] INTERNET--DRAFT 1. Introduction A large, operational, research and development X.400 service called The COSINE X.400 Service is currently deployed throughout Europe. Many of the COSINE X.400 organizations are connected to the Internet. A number of other Internet- connected organizations are beginning to operate internal X.400 services (for example, U.S. government organizations following U.S. GOSIP). The motivation for this document is to foster a International X.400 Service that has full interoperability with the existing E-mail service based on RFC 822. The goal is of this document is to accommodate the global | R&D community by uniting all regionally operated R&D X.400 services on the various continents into one International X.400 Service (as seen from an end-user's point of view). Examples of such regional services are the COSINE MHS Ser- vice in Europe and the XNREN service in the U.S. A successful, global International X.400 Service is depen- | dent on decisions at both the national and international level. National X.400 service providers are responsible for the implementation of the minimum requirements defined in this document. In addition to these minimum requirements, national requirements may be defined by each national ser- vice provider. This document refers to other documents which should be pub- | lished as RFCs. These documents are: | + Routing coordination for an X.400 MHS-service within a multi protocol / multi network environment [1]. + X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading [2]. This document handles issues concerning X.400 1984 and X.400 | 1988 to 1984 downgrading. Issues concerning pure X.400 1988 | are left for further study. | We are grateful to Allan Cargille and Lawrence Landweber for | their input and guidance on this paper. This paper is also a | product of discussions in the IETF X.400 Operations WG and | the RARE WG1 (on MHS). | 1.1. Terminology | This document defines requirements, recommendations and con- | ventions. Throughout the doucment, the following defini- | tions apply: a requirement is specified with the word shall. | A recommendation is specified with the word should. A | INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 3] INTERNET--DRAFT convention is specified with the word might. Conventions | are intended to make life easier for RFC 822 systems that | don't follow the host requirements. 1.2. Profiles This section identifies the X.400 profiles which shall be supported by participating organizations. The following is a list of such profiles. It cannot be expected that all X.400 | implementations supports all profiles. The consequence of | this is for further study. + U.S. GOSIP - unspecified version + ENV - 401201 2. Architecture of the International X.400 Service In order to facilitate a coherent deployment of X.400 in the International X.400 Service , it is necessary to define, in general terms, the overall structure and organization of the X.400 service. This section is broken into several parts which discuss management domains, lower layer connectivity issues, and overall routing issues. 2.1. Management Domains The X.400 model supports connectivity between administra- tions with different service requirements; the architectural vehicle for this is a Management Domain. Management domains are needed when different administrations have different specific requirements. Two types of management domains are defined by the X.400 model: an Administration Management Domain (ADMD) and a Private Management Domain (PRMD). Throughout the world in various countries there are dif- ferent organizational policies for MDs. All of these poli- cies are legal according to the X.400 standard. Currently, national X.400 service providers are organized as: a) One or several ADMDs. b) One or several PRMDs and with no ADMDs present in the country. c) One or several PRMDs connected to one or several ADMDs. At this stage it is not possible to say which model is the most effective. Thus, the International X.400 Service shall allow every model. 2.2. The Well Known Entrypoint (WEP) The X.400 message routing decision process takes as input the destination O/R address and produces as output the name INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 4] INTERNET--DRAFT (and perhaps connection information) of the MTA who will take responsibility of delivering the message to the reci- pient. The X.400 store and forward model permits a message to pass through multiple MTAs. However, it is generally accepted that the most efficient path for a message to take is one where a direct connection is made from the originator to the recipient's MTA. Large scale deployment of X.400 in the International X.400 Service will require a well deployed X.500 infrastructure to support routing. In this environment, a routing decision can be made by searching the X.500 database with a destination O/R address in order to obtain the name of the next hop MTA. This MTA may be a central entry point into an MD, or it may be the destination MTA within an MD. Deployment of X.400 without X.500 will require the use of static tables to store routing information. This table (keyed on O/R addresses), will be used to map a destination O/R address to a next hop MTA. In order to facilitate effi- cient routing, one could build a table that contains infor- mation about every MTA in every MD. However, this is not feasible in practice. Therefore, it is necessary to use the concept of a well known entrypoint (WEP). The purpose of a WEP is to act as a default entry point into an MD. The MTA that acts as a WEP for an MD shall be capable of accepting responsibility for all messages that it receives that are destined for well-defined recipients in that MD. The use of a WEP for routing is defined by [1]. WEPs in the International X.400 Service shall operate according to [1]. 2.3. Lower Layer Stack Incompatibilities A requirement for successful operation of the International X.400 Service is that all users can exchange messages. The International X.400 Service is not dependent on the tradi- tional TCP/IP lower layer protocol suite. A variety of lower layer suites are used as carriers of X.400 messages. | For example, consider Figure 1. | figure arch.ps height 4i Figure 1: A International X.400 Service Deployment Scenario PRMD A has three WEPs which collectively provide support for | INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 5] INTERNET--DRAFT the TP0/CONS/X.25, TP0/RFC1006, and TP4/CLNS stacks[1] Thus, | PRMD A is reachable via these stacks. However, since PRMD B | only supports the TP0/CONS/X.25 stack, it is not reachable | from the TP0/RFC 1006 or the TP4/CLNS stack. PRMD C supports | TP0/RFC1006 and TP4/CLNS. Since PRMD B and PRMD C do not | share a common stack, how is a message from PRMD C to reach | a recipient in PRMD B ? | One solution to this problem is to require that PRMD B | implement a stack in common with PRMD C. However this is may | not be a politically acceptable answer to PRMD B. | Another solution is to implement a transport service bridge | (TSB) between TP0/RFC 1006 in PRMD C to TP0/CONS in PRMD B. | This will solve the problem for PRMD C and B. However, the | lack of a coordinated deployment of TSB technology makes | this answer alone unacceptable on an international scale. | The solution to this problem is to define a coordinated | mechanism that allows PRMD B to the world that it has made a | bilateral agreements with PRMD A to support reachability to | PRMD B from the TP0/RFC 1006 stack. | This solution does not require that every MTA or MD directly | support all stacks. However, it is a requirement that if a | particular stack is not directly supported by an MD, the MD | will need to make bilateral agreements with other MD(s) in | order to assure that connectivity from that stack is avail- | able. | Thus, in the case of Figure 1, PRMD B can make a bilateral | agreement with PRMD A which provides for PRMD A to relay | messages which arrive on either the TP4/CLNP stack or the | TP0/RFC 1006 stack to PRMD B using the TP0/CONS stack. | The policies described in [1] define this general purpose | solution. It is a requirement that all MDs follow the rules | and policies defined by [1]. 3. Description of International X.400 Service Policies An IMD is a Management Domain in the International X.400 Service. The policies described in this section constitute a minimum | set of common policies for IMDs. They are specified to ensure interoperability between [1] Note: it is acceptable for a single WEP to support more than one stack. Three WEPs are shown in this picture for clarity. INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 6] INTERNET--DRAFT - all IMDs. - all IMDs and the Internet mail service (SMTP). - all IMDs and other X.400 service providers. Policies defined below are defined in terms of the words: shall, should and might. 3.1. X.400 address registration An O/R address is a descriptive name for a UA that has cer- | tain characteristics that help the Service Providers to | locate the UA. Every O/R address is an O/R name, but not | every O/R name is an O/R address. This is explained in [5], | chapter 3.1. | Uniqueness of X.400 addresses shall be used to ensure end- | user connectivity. | O/R addresses shall be used according to the description of | O/R names, Form 1, Variant 1 (see [5], chapter 3.3.2). The | attributes shall be regarded as a hierarchy of | Country name (C) Administration domain name (ADMD) [Private domain name] (PRMD) [Organization name] (O) [Organizational Unit Names] (OUs) [Personal name] (PN) [Domain-defined attributes] (DDAs) Attributes enclosed in square brackets are optional. At | least one of PRMD, PN, O an OU names shall be present in an | O/R address. | In general an underlaying address element shall be unique | within the scope of the overlaying element. An exception is | PRMD, see section 3.1.2. There shall exist registration | authorities for each level, or mechanisms shall be available | to ensure such uniqueness. 3.1.1. Country (C) The values of the top level element, Country, shall be | defined by the set of two letter country codes, or numeric | country codes in ISO 3166. 3.1.2. Administration Management Domain (ADMD) INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 7] INTERNET--DRAFT -- Editor's Note -- It is not at all clear to me what this text should say. It is supposed to be supplied according to RARE WG1 minutes from an old discussion. I sincerely hope that this can be an action item for the next WG1 meeting! 3.1.3. Private Management Domain (PRMD) The PRMD values should be unique within a country. | 3.1.4. Organization (O) Organization values shall be unique within the context of | the subscribed PRMD or ADMD if there is no PRMD. 3.1.5. Organizational units (OUs) A unique hierarchy of OUs shall be implemented. The top | level OU is unique within the scope of the overlaying | address element. 3.1.6. Given name, Initials, Surname (G I S) The following elements should be used: Given name (G), | Initials (I) and Surname (S). Each Organization can define its own Given-names, Initials, and Surnames to be used within the Organization. In the cases when Surnames are not unique within an O or OU, The Given-name and/or Initial will be used to identify the Originator/Recipient. In the rare cases when more than one user would have the same combination of G, I, S under the same O and/or OUs, each organization is free to find a practical solution, and provide the users with unique O/R addresses. To avoid problems with the mapping of the X.400 addresses into RFC-822 addresses, the following rules might be used. | ADMD, PRMD, O, and OU values should consist of characters | drawn from the alphabet (A-Z), digits (0-9), and minus. No | blank or space characters are permitted as part of a name. | No distinction is made between upper and lower case. The | last character must not be a minus sign or period. The | first character may be either a letter or a digit (see [6], | [7]). INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 8] INTERNET--DRAFT 3.1.7. Domain Defined Attributes (DDAs) The International X.400 Service shall allow the use of domain defined attributes. The following DDAs shall be supported by an IMD: "RFC-822" - defined in [3]. The following DDAs should be supported by an IMD: "COMMON" - defined in [2]. 3.2. X.400 88 -> 84 downgrading The requirements in [2] should be implemented in IMDs. 3.3. X.400 / RFC 822 address mapping All International X.400 Service end-users shall be reachable from all end-users in the Internet mail service (SMTP), and vice versa. The address mapping issue is split into two parts: 1) Specification of RFC-822 addresses seen from the X.400 world. 2) Specification of X.400 addresses seen from the RFC-822 world. The mapping of X.400 and RFC-822 addresses shall be performed according| to [3]. | 3.3.1. Specification of RFC-822 addresses seen from the X.400 world Two scenarios are described: A. The RFC-822 end-user belongs to an organization with no defined X.400 standard attribute address space. B. The RFC-822 end-user belongs to an organization with a defined X.400 standard attribute address space. Organizations belong to scenario B if their X.400 addresses are registered according to the requirements in section 3.1. 3.3.1.1. An organization with no defined X.400 address space RFC-822 addresses shall be expressed using X.400 domain defined attributes. The mechanism used to define the RFC-822 recipient will vary on a per-country basis. INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 9] INTERNET--DRAFT For example, in the US, a special PRMD named "Internet" is defined to facilitate the specification of RFC-822 addresses. A X.400 user can address an RFC-822 recipient in the U.S. by constructing an X.400 address such as: C=us; ADMD= ; PRMD=Internet; DD.RFC-822=user(a)some.place.edu; The first part of this address: C=us; ADMD= ; PRMD=Internet; denotes the U.S. portion of the Internet community and | not a specific "gateway". The 2nd part: DD.RFC-822=user(a)some.place.edu is the RFC-822 address of the Internet mail user after substitution of non-printable characters according to RFC-1148. The RFC-822 address is placed in an X.400 Domain Defined Attribute of type RFC-822 (DD.RFC-822). Each country is free to choose its own method of defining the RFC-822 community. For example in Italy, an X.400 user would refer to an RFC-822 user as: C=IT; ADMD=MASTER400; DD.RFC-822=user(a)some.place.it In the UK, an X.400 user would refer to an RFC-822 user as: C=GB; ADMD= ; PRMD=UK.AC; O=MHS-relay; DD.RFC-822=user(a)some.place.uk 3.3.1.2. An organization with a defined X.400 address space An RFC-822 address for an Internet mail user in such an organization shall look exactly as a normal X.400 address for X.400 users in the same organization. Example: University of Wisconsin-Madison is registered under C=US; ADMD= ; PRMD=XNREN; with O=UW-Madison and they are using OU=cs to address end-users in the CS-department. The RFC-822 address for Internet mail users in the same department is: user@cs.wisc.edu. An X.400 user in the International X.400 Service will address the Internet mail user at the CS-department with INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 10] INTERNET--DRAFT the X.400 address: C=US; ADMD= ; PRMD=xnren; O=UW-Madison; OU=cs; S=user; This is the same address space as is used for X.400 end-users in the same department. 3.3.2. Specification of X.400 addresses seen from the RFC-822 world | If an X.400 organization has a defined RFC-822 address | space, RFC-822 users will be able to address X.400 | recipients in RFC-822/Internet terms. This means that | the address of the X.400 user, seen from an RFC-822 | user, will be on the form: | Firstname.Lastname@some.place.edu | where the some.place.edu is a registered Internet | domain. | This implies the necessity of maintaining and | distributing address mapping tables to all participating | RFC-987 gateways. The mapping tables shall be globally | consistent. Effective mapping table coordination | procedures are needed. The procedures define in [4] | shall be followed. | If an organization does not have a defined RFC-822 | address space, an escape mapping (defined in [3]) shall | be used. In this case, the address of the X.400 user, | seen from an RFC-822 user, will be on the form: | "/G=Firsname/S=Lastname/O=orgname/PRMD=foo/ADMD=bar/C=us/"@| some.gateway.edu | This escape mapping shall also be used for X.400 | addresses do not map cleanly to RFC-822 addresses. | It is recommended that an organization with no defined | RFC-822 address space, should register RFC-822 domains | at SRI-NIC. This will minimize the number of addresses | which must use the escape mapping. If the escape mapping is not used, RFC-822 users will not see the difference between an Internet RFC-822 address and an address in the International X.400 Service. For example: INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 11] INTERNET--DRAFT The X.400 address: C=us; ADMD=ATTMail; PRMD=CDC; O=CPG; S=Lastname; G=Firstname; will from an RFC-822 user look like: Firstname.Lastname@cpg.cdc.com 3.4. Routing policy To facilitate routing in the International X.400 Service | before an X.500 infrastructure is deployed, the | following two tables, an MTA table and a Domain table, | are defined. These tables are formally defined in [1]. | The use of these tables is necessary to solve the | routing crisis that is present today. However, this is a | temporary solution that will be replace by the use X.500 | when an X.500 infrastructure is present. The MTA table will define the names of well known MTAs (WEPs) and their associated connection data including selector values, NSAP addresses, supported protocol stacks, and supported X.400 protocol version(s). Each entry in the Domain table consists of a sub-tree hierarchy of an X.400 address, followed by a list of MTAs which are willing to accept mail for the address or provide a relay service for it. Each MTA name will be associated with a priority value. Collectively, the list of MTA names in the Domain table make the given address reachable from all protocol stacks. In addition, the list of MTAs may provide redundant paths to the address, so in this case, the priority value indicates the preferred path, or the preferred order in which alternative routes should be tried. The MTA and Domain tables are coordinated at a global, | central administration point. The procedures for table information gathering and distribution, are for further study. 3.5. Minimum statistics/accounting -- Editor's Note -- We are waiting for a contribution from the COSINE MHS Project team. INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 12] INTERNET--DRAFT References [1] U. Eppenberger, Routing coordination for an X.400 MHS- service within a multi protocol / multi network environment, unpublished working draft. [2] S.E. Hardcastle-Kille, X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading, IETF Internet Draft, "draft-ietf-kille- 88to84downgrade-01.txt". [3] S.E. Hardcastle-Kille, Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822, IETF Internet Draft [4] <This should be a reference to a document which specifies mapping table maintainence and distribution procedures>. [5] <ref. CCITT Red Book, X.400> [6] K. Harrenstien, et al. DOD Internet Host Table Specification. Request for Comments 952, October 1985. [7] R. Braden. Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support. Request for Comments 1123, October 1989. INTERNET--DRAFT [Page 13] INTERNET--DRAFT
- New version of the PRMD requirements paper hagens
- Re: New version of the PRMD requirements paper Christian Huitema
- Re: New version of the PRMD requirements paper Einar Stefferud