Amsterdam IETF x400ops minutes

[Allan Cargille <[e-mail]>]

Hello x400ops folk,

Here are the minutes from the recent meeting in Houston.  Please send
me requests for changes to the minutes.  Sorry they are so long,
that's what you get when I can type as fast as people can talk!
Because of the length I have put an executive summary at the top.

I'm hoping to get the revised postmaster doc out tomorrow (Wed).

Cheers,

allan

======================================================================

Minutes of x400ops working group
November 3, 1993
Houston IETF
Minutes taken by Allan Cargille

Minutes are recorded following the order and item numbers of the agenda.  
Separate agenda items are separated by two blank lines.


Executive summary:
- the Amsterdam minutes are not approved.  They will be revised.
- the postmaster doc will receive final editorial comments and be 
    submitted as a standards-track RFC.
- the MD requirements doc will receive final editorial comments and be 
    submitted as an Informational RFC.
- a revised document on storing RFC1327 mapping rules in the DNS will be 
    released within a few weeks.  A new companion document about how this 
    should be administratively implemented and deployed will be written by the 
    next IETF or RARE WG-msg meeting.
- the proposed CXII group will continue to be discussed on the cxii list.  
    If it cannot be finalized by the Seattle IETF the group will probably not 
    be created.
- the work on ADMD IMX is viewed as a US national issue and should be 
    developed in some US forum, not the IETF.  The work should be fed back 
    into the IETF for comments and to be published.
- A sister group to the IETF on operations may be created, the IOTF.
- The x400ops group will be terminated following this IETF.  Outstanding 
    work items can be brought up on the x400ops mailing list.  If worthwhile, 
    a small focused working group will be created to work on the new topic.
- Thanks to Tony Genovese and Alf Hansen for chairing this group.
- Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!


0.  Review of Action Items.  This was difficult to do because action items 
were not summarized in previous minutes.  This section will be updated as 
the Amsterdam minutes are revised.  [action]

  
1. Opening.  Jim Romaguera did the minutes from the last meeting.  They 
are were not approved.  They were submitted in a rush.  Alf and Tony 
apologized for incomplete minutes being published.  Marko and Urs had sent 
messages requesting changes to the minutes which were not made.  Marko's 
name was misspelled in section 6.  He was unhappy with the proposed chairs 
in section 10.  Action item:  Amsterdam minutes will be reviewed again on 
the list and revised.  Allan Cargille foolishly volunteered to edit the 
revised minutes.  Action items need to be identified, both those from the 
previous meeting (Columbus) at the beginning of the document and those 
from Amsterdam in the body.  We can also check the x400ops list archive 
for comments to the minutes.

    
2. Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations.  Allan Cargille reviewed 
the key idea of the document.  He removed the section about supporting an 
easy way to reach the managers of an X.400 management domain (ADMD or 
PRMD) out of the document and plans to write that up in a separate 
document.  Editorial comment:  edit out the part about 84 and 88, just say 
both are running and reference both standards.  There was consensus that 
the group will forward the document as a standards-track RFC.  Allan will 
revise the document and clean up the references.  Then he will publish as 
an Internet Draft and ask for comments for one week on the ops list.  This 
final review is for editorial comments only.  Then Allan will make any 
necessary corrections and forward the document to be published.  Allan 
will have the revised Internet Draft out by November 8th [action].


3. Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains.  Alf made 
editorial changes to the document and cleaned up the references.  Few 
people have read the final version.  The document is available and key 
people are asked to review the document for editorial changes:  Tony, Urs, 
Jeroen, Harald A., and Allan [action].  We will close discussion by 
November 15th.  People who read the document should let Alf and Tony know 
that they have read it.  Tony will buy a beverage for the person who finds 
the most typos!


4. DNS support for RFC1327 mapping.  Claudio has been working on a 
mechanism to store and look up RFC1327 mappings using the DNS.  The first 
proposal received some strong requests for changes from the namedroppers 
working group (DNS experts) at the March 1993 IETF.  Claudio had also done 
work on storing X.400 routing and MTA connection information in the DNS.  
This work has been suspended in favor of using X.500 (the IETF mhsds 
working group work).

Claudio has developed a second version of his proposal.  The document will 
be published as an Internet Draft this coming week [action].  He presented 
the major changes of the new approach.  The new approach defines a new DNS 
resource record which allows a single DNS query for a lookup.  Some 
extensions are also included for eventual future use.  The new approach 
stores Table 2 (822  to X.400) and "Gateway Table" mappings in the normal 
DNS domain tree.  Table 1 (X.400 to 822) mappings will be stored in a 
separate tree, rooted at the *national* level.  This approach forces 
coordination between the X.400 and DNS naming authorities.  This will 
require considerable work  in explaining concepts and coordinating things.  
Claudio said there is a need for an API specification.

Mapping coordination at the national level will be achieved in different 
steps, according to the draft document on mapping authorities.  It fits 
into the regionalization process currently ongoing in the internet. It 
allows a full authority delegation as a final result of the process.  An 
orderly transition is supported from centralized storage of the mapping 
rules in Italy to using the new national mapping tree, because software 
will support checking the national tree first and looking in the Italian 
tree if nothing was found.

Mapping rule storage and control will proceed in 3 different steps.  One, 
the information is maintained centrally in Italy and servers fallback to 
that location for lookups.  Second, the national trees are implemented but 
things are centralized at the national level.  Third, the information is 
truly distributed in the national trees.

The document also makes it possible to define a DNS/x.500 interface to 
make LONGBUD and DNS a unique schema for mapping distribution, with no 
duplication and global accessibility.

There was general concern about an update problem with two distributed 
mapping storage technologies (DNS and X.500).  Urs said that the technical 
work is done and is solid, and that we need to think about the 
administrative work that is necessary to use this technology.  The group 
notes that this work has implications on the mhsds group.

Claudio will write a separate document about information and deployment of 
this technology by the next RARE MSG or IETF meeting [action].  Further 
discussion of both documents will proceed in the RARE working group on 
messaging.


5. Commercial X.400 Interconnection with Internet (CXII) Working Group.  A 
proposed charter was included as input to this meeting.  Tony Genovese led 
this discussion.

[include slides from Tony Genovese]

Since Amsterdam:

2 points of contention:  chairs and technical contributors.  Chairs will 
be determined solely by the Area Directors.  Need technical leads for 
document sets.  Have one volunteer co-chair, looking for another.  Need 
technical leads for documents.  Working group will be in the Operations 
area but Erik H. will serve as Area Director for the group.

Questions:  should the area be worked on?  (SK - in general?  Or in IETF?)
Are there problems in this area?  (agreement: YES)  Which problems?  Then, 
who wants to work on them?  Will any commercial providers come in and 
participate?  Erik working to get EMA and EEMA participants, and may be 
able to find a co-chair for the group from a commercial service.

Steve Kille:  report on EEMA work in this area.  Issue was raised in EEMA 
PRMD operators group - requirement for X.400 to Internet working.  X.400 
mail users wish to communicate with Internet and vice-versa.  Not service-
provider initiated, user initiated by big customers.  X.400 is real and a 
large group are using it and are serious about using it.  There were two 
meetings with large attendance on interconnecting.  Jim Romaguera 
contracted to write a series of reports for that group -- were they 
circulated to the x400ops list?  2 issues:  technical and commercial. 
Technical work essentially completed.  Real issues are commercial ones.  
Problems to make this fly are to build a commercial model which will allow 
interoperation between these communities.  Quite clear if you don't find a 
commercial model that will accommodate both worlds then we have a serious 
problem.  Commercial - pay for email service.  Internet - pay for pipe, 
email "free".  GOMHS using internet model.  Need to develop a viable 
commercial model.  Users are prepared to pay for services as long as 
charges are reasonable (appropriate).  IP providers and X.400 providers 
are competing with each other.  Have to formulate a connection in a way 
which protects the operational interests of both parties.  Have a problem 
if you just expect the ADMDs to connect up for free.  Steve chairing small 
group of 5 people in EEMA - 2 Internet providers and 2 commercial 
providers (DBP and Mercury, UK) trying to put together a commercial 
proposal -- a small forum to try to make progress on this.

Tony - concern about EEMA putting out documents with no review process, 
Internet input.  Steve - need a forum which is balanced Internet and 
ADMDs, or heavy on ADMDs.  In a group which is mostly R&D the ADMDs will 
not be comfortable and progress will not be made.

Steve - model problem - ADMDs cannot talk to anyone who is "responsible" 
for the Internet mail service.

Tony - real problem is that national mail services make agreements but the 
agreements do not cover the whole Internet community, just that specific 
community.

Marko - EEMA small forum is strictly commercial (IP and ADMD) but not the 
R&D  community is not represented.

Harald - in IETF - work done by informal design team, working groups are 
for review and discussion.  Good idea to have review process in this group 
(x400ops) or elsewhere in IETF for EEMA outputs?

Erik - sees need for work in IETF forum.  Sees need for EEMA work.  Not 
too happy with small EEMA team because both are commercial providers (IP 
and ADMD).  Tradition and experience in IETF community.  We have a 
community to serve which needs to be connected to ADMD world.  Need to get 
our own perspectives right on how we think these services should be 
operated.  Need to start thinking about service levels, with commercial 
perspective.  Need to understand what the commercial world wants, and 
whether our customers want that too, if we can live up to it too, etc, if 
so, what the requirements are and what we have to do to get to that point.  
He does not see necessary progress happening if EEMA output is not subject 
to review and is imposed on Internet community.

Steve - EEMA is assumes CXII work will happen, will liaison with the group 
if it occurs.

Erik - no use to do CXII work unless we can get commercial participation.  
Only has use if we do this in a real collaborative effort with the ADMD 
community.  Sees a real use for that.

Urs - It seems like CXII is trying to find business arrangement between 
service providers.  This is not the IETFs business.

Steve:
- short discussion of problems
- agreements that could be put in place
- how do you coordinate the whole thing.
- will never find one model that does everything, connects whole Internet 
to entire X.400 service.  Need to show how to tie the pieces together.  
Connecting X.400 commercial services to Internet email community (822 and 
X.400) will include many pieces.

Tony - Out of time, have to move discussion on to list.

Erik - let's focus.  Identify the errors which are not covered by the 
documents we have done yet, which are worthwhile covering, mapping 
coordination, accounting, service levels, helpdesks, levels of logging and 
trouble shooting, etc.  No BOF in Seattle if list does not reach consensus 
by Seattle.  Purpose of 1st document is vague.  2nd and 3rd, identify 
exact points that need to be covered.  If agree, can have WG in Seattle.  
Need to specify, "This document is trying to address the following 
problems: ..."

Allan C.:  documenting various business models is highly appropriate.  
Imposing one business model is not.  Documenting them would be very 
helpful.  Others agreed with this.

Follow-on CXII discussion, small group 1:30 to 3:30.  One room is free, 
Urs will ask Megan.  Will be posted on bulletin board.  Continue on 
discussion list.  [Note - a small group met and the output of their 
discussions will be mailed to the cxii list.]

Tony's slides are on the esnet file server (anonymous ftp to ftp.es.net, 
directory is pub/mhs/x400ops/houston.



6. US-ops.  Allan Cargille led the discussion during this section.  He 
outlined two different issues which fall under this agenda item.  One is 
the work on ADMD IMX under C=US.  The second is the need for a forum for 
Internet-related issues which are specific to the US or North America.

There are questions about whether ADMD IMX should be viewed as a US issue 
or an Internet-wide issue.  It can be viewed as an Internet-wide solution 
which happens to be stuck under C=us due to the X.400 country-centric 
addressing structure.  For example, if C=WW (worldwide) existed, we would 
prefer to register ADMD IMX under C=ww and it would not be bound to the 
US.  Alternatively, it can be viewed as the US national solution to X.400 
naming in the US Internet, which is US-centric and should be developed in 
a US forum.

The second issue is that the IETF developed in the context of the US.  
Therefore work on an issue which was Internet-related could be conducted 
in the IETF, even if the work was US-centric.  Now that the IETF has 
developed its identity as an international organization, Internet-related 
topics which are US or North American in scope do not have a valid forum.  
The problem was recognized by the group, but addressing this problem is 
outside the scope of the x400ops working group.

Erik - don't want IMX work in IETF.  IESG agrees.  Do not want to solve 
problem for US national issues.  There is support in the IAB for the 
development of a new international group, the IOTF (Internet Operations 
Task Force).  Need someone to drive it and chair, put structure in place.  
Structure still open - might have areas and regionals within areas.  Ex:  
X.400 area could have North American and European groups.  Area directors 
would ensure coordination between groups.  Need to find someone to work on 
it and pull this off.  Erik plans to talk to Vint on Thursday. Need 
someone with impact in various organizations, get commitments from 
organizations to send people.  Needs someone with visibility and support 
from funding agencies, also organizations must participate.  IESG and IAB 
are behind this idea.

Allan and Erik talk to Erik on Thursday?  People recognize the need for 
it.  Erik - would go for someone high up in operators groups, a US person 
to lead this.  Most likely the IOTF will be established within 6 months or 
it will not proceed anytime soon.  Initially it will probably meet in 
parallel with IETFs, maybe not later.

Erik - IMX is not a good solution for the world, maybe in the US it is.  
Alf - should each country write a similar document?

Allan C. - Would C=us; ADMD=IMX be used in other countries?  Other people 
all said no.  This implies it is more of a national issue.  Forum is 
unclear, perhaps the budding IOTF would be a forum for this work.

Jeroen - do not fragment Engineering efforts.  IMX not operational either 
so IOTF is not the right forum for that work either.

Erik - should publish IMX document as informational RFC.  Will not get 
IESG review.  Document should be reviewed by x400ops participants but will 
not be progressed as a WG document.

Erik - predicts future regionalization of the IETF.  RARE will become the 
European committee of ISOC.  Some North American group will also be 
created.  Will still be overall ISOC coordination.

John K - Even if IETF does not regionalize, future will be much more 
coordination with different groups such as RARE, ISO groups, etc.


7. What next.

Erik : keep ops list open, documents in standards track.  Could use rare 
msg group for some topics.  If discussions raise technical issues that 
merit IETF work, would welcome a proposal for that group.  Not just an 
extension of x400ops but a focused group for 1/2 year or so to work on a 
specific issue.

Urs - there is a specific list for rfc1465 issues.  
[e-mail].  Jeroen - has copies of tutorial papers.  RARE 
can send more copies.  

Allan C. - Sees the following as outstanding work items:
1.  A document on the long-range plan for X.400 in the Internet
2.  Possible work on dynamic X.400 routing using the DNS.  X.500 work 
    (mhsds/LONGBUD) is not materializing fast enough.
3.  X.400(88) in the GO-MHS community.
4.  A standard way to address the managers of an X.400 Management Domain 
    (PRMD or MD).
5.  A document on internal operations of ADMD IMX.
6.  A document on connections between ADMD IMX and ADMDs.
It appears that the IMX work will not be approved to be done in the 
context of the IETF.

Steve - agree on concern about mhsds delays.  Very high priority for specs 
and for implementation.  Need global solution for scalable routing, he 
sees X.500 as the only viable solution.

Erik - want focused groups in future.  Open area meeting on Thurs.  
Problem - can have beautiful ideas about what needs to be done, but must 
have volunteers to do the work.  Need people to chair the groups, write 
the documents, and discuss.


8. Close.  Erik H. thanked Alf and Tony for chairing the group.  The 
working group will be terminated after this IETF.


Summary of action items:

a.  Allan Cargille - revise these minutes to include action items from 
last time at top, once they have been identified.

b.  group members - contribute requests for changes to Amsterdam minutes 
on x400ops list.

c.  Allan C. - revise Amsterdam minutes based on group input.

d.  Allan C. - clean up references in postmaster doc, release by Nov 8th.

d.  group members - review postmaster doc for final editorial changes by 
Nov 15th.  

e.  Allan C. - submit final postmaster doc as RFC

f.  group members - review MD Requirements doc for final editorial changes 
by Nov 15th.  Especially Tony, Urs, Jeroen, Harald A., and Allan.  Please 
mail the ops list or Alf and Tony if you read it.

g.  Claudio - post revised document on storing mapping rules in DNS by Nov 
15th.

h.  Claudio - write new document about implementation of mapping rules in 
DNS by next IETF or RARE WG-MSG meeting.

i.  Small cxii discussion group (Tony G, Brian, etc) - post output of 
discussions to cxii list within the next several weeks.

j.  Erik H. - talk to Vint Cerf about creating the IOTF.