OSI Integration Area Director(s): o David M. Piscitello: dave@sabre.bellcore.com o Erik Huizer: Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl Area Summary reported by Dave Piscitello/Bellcore and Erik Huizer/SURFnet The following Working Groups and/or BOFS in the OSI area met at the Washington IETF: FTPFTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway BOF MHSDS MHS-DS NOOP Network OSI Operations OSIDS OSI Directory Services WHOIS Shared Whois Project BOF X400OPS X.400 Operations THINOSI Xwindows over OSI and Skinny stack BOF The MIME-MHS Working Group, dealing with mapping MIME into X.400(88) and back, did not meet in Washington. The Group finished the three drafts, and will submit them on the standards track. FTP-FTAM Gateway BOF (FTPFTAM) The FTP-FTAM Gateway Internet Draft was previously discussed in the now defunct OSI-General Working Group. Josh Mindell and Robert Slaski gave a brief presentation of the status of the work since the July 1991 IETF, and described the changes introduced into the recently posted Internet Draft. Much of the work introduced is not radically new, but is not reflected in the current implementations. Steve Hardcastle-Kille indicated that the ISODE Consortium would be willing to consider implementation to upgrade the existing ISODE gateway if consortia members request it (and $ up). The Working Group discussed quite frankly, the difficulties of sustaining interest in this project, which is locked a classic chicken-egg situation. Absent an RFC to cite in procurement requests, it has been difficult to foster additional implementation efforts. The BOF requested that the OSI Area Directors inquire as to the possibility of progressing the Internet Draft, which has been implemented, to 1 Proposed Standard. It is expected that during the review and development period following the recommendation to Proposed, at least the two currently known implementations will be made to conform and interoperate against the draft. MHS-DS Working Group (MHSDS) At its meeting in Washington, the MHSDS Working Group accomplished the following: o Approved an updated Charter which adds coordination of a pilot project to the scope of the Working Group. o Wrote a formal statement of purpose for the pilot project, and established concrete goals, a time-frame, criteria for measuring success, participants, and a coordinator for it. o Reviewed four of the Group's nine documents-in-progress, recommended two of them for advancement as proposed standards, and made good progress on its principal routing document. Network OSI Operations Working Group (NOOP) NOOP talked about the revision of RFC1139 and also the Tools RFC draft Both of these need some revision. Both need some specific text about MUST and SHOULD, etc. The Tools RFC is going to have the MIB information removed until there is a routing table MIB. Then the document will be modified to point to the routing table MIB. After the documents are revised, we will put them up as Internet Drafts and try to move them on to Proposed Standard. Some folks are going to work on getting a group together to make a routing table/forwarding table MIB. (Dave Piscitello is heading this effort). Sue showed us the latest survey of OSI in the Internet. Some comments were made as to changes to the format of the survey to make it easier to fill out and understand. Sue is going to modify the survey and send it out to the Group. The survey results are availabe on merit.edu. The second session of NOOP was a tutorial for folks a little less familiar with OSI and deployment issues. After the tutorial we discussed a particular network's topology and how it might be broken up into areas and domains. OSI Directory Services Working Group (OSIDS) The Working Group discussed several Internet Drafts: o Strategic Deployment of Directory Services on the Internet. No 2 comments, will be published as Informational RFC. o DUA Metrics. No comments, will be published as Informational RFC DSA metrics hold until tested it against an implementation. o LDAP (Lightweight Access Protocol). This and associated syntax document will be submitted as Proposed Standard RFCs. The Group discussed the RFC 1373, on portable DUAs (not gone through this Working Group) and decided that the document is confusing and should not have been published as such. Several drafts on representing network information and other non-personal information in the Directory were discussed. These drafts were deemed interesting, and the Working Group will start working on these. Finally the Group discussed the Charter. It was concluded that most of the goals from the original Charter have been achieved. An inventory was made amongst the members on whether they thought the Group should close down, or whether there were new items in the directory area that needed work. The inventory showed that there is certainly interest to continue a Directory Services group, but with a slightly shifted focus, towards solving operational mid-term problems in the areas of datamanagement, provision of integrated DUAs, Database coupling interfaces, security and legal issues. The Working Group Chair and Area Directors will draft a new Charter. It was noted that absence of any representative of the ongoing pilots on X.500 is very unfortunate. X.400 Operations Working Group (X400OPS) The Working Group started of with a new co-Chair, Tony Genovese, taking over from Rob Hagens. Twenty-Nine participants from Eight countries attended the meeting. The Working Group discussed various Internet Drafts: o Operational requirements for X.400 Management domains in the GO-MHS Community. Minor comments; will be published as Informational RFC and RTR. o Using the Internet DNS to maintain RFC1327 mapping tables and X.400 routing information. This will be split into two documents. Progressed to prototype early 1993. o Routing coordination for X.400...... As usual lots of comments. Routing is always a hot issue :-). Will now be advanced early 1993 3 to prototype. o Assertion of C=US; A=Internet lively discussions on this document. Lots of opposition especially from outside of the US. A special design team was formed on this issue Chaired by Kevin Jordan and Allan Cargille. The US-RAC name registration and behaviour guidelines were presented under this item. o Mapping between X.400 and Mail-11. No more comments on the document. Will be submitted as prototype RFC. o X.400 use of extended character sets. No comments, will be published as an Informational RFC. o X.400 postmaster convention will be discussed via E-mail and then put on standards track. Xwindows over OSI and Skinny Stack BOF (THINOIS) The THINOSI BOF was the second BOF on this subject, with 14 participants. The conclusions were to propose a working group with three objectives: 1. Promote the deployment and testing of X-windows over OSI implementations and their generalisation to be carrier of any byte- stream over ACSE and the OSI 7-layer. (Simple byte-stream, not equivalent to full TCP function). 2. Develop a RFC that defines the skinny bits for the generalised byte stream carrier: The protocol that the OSI standards require, but respecified without regard to which standard requires it. 3. Develop an RFC of skinny bits for some subset of Directory Access Protocol. Items 2 and especially 3 are feasibility proofs to see if such a document can be produced and be usefull. Implementation in parallel is anticipated. 4