bob@morningstar.COM (Bob Sutterfield) (07/18/90)
(I asked on the general ISO group last week and drew only silence, so perhaps the X.400 groups would be more appropriate. I'm relatively new to ISO stuff, and perhaps this is an old topic. If so, please forgive me and help me come up-to-date!) RFC822 is to RFC1036 as X.400 is to ??? (or, alternatively phrased,) mail is to news as MHS IPM is to ??? I see in the Blue Book X.400/7.4 that "One MS [Message Store] acts on behalf of only one user (one O/R address), i.e. it does not provide a common or shared MS capability to several users." In X.400/14 (Distribution Lists in MHS) and in X.402/7.1.3 it appears, by omission of other possibilities, as if all conferences will use (possibly nested) distribution lists. Or does the "delivery to UAs" function in Figure 14/X.400 allow for common MS access? X.400/15.4 "MHS Security Capabilities" include several that seem problematic for news - particularly proof of delivery, flow confidentiality, and message sequence integrity, which raise architectural issues with news' flood transport algorithm. The other authentication, content confidentiality, and content integrity matters are at least workable. MT (Message Transfer service) non-delivery indication seems like something to avoid in a news-like environment, given the rampant fluidity of news transport connectivity. I note with some relief that the language of X.402/7.1.3 leaves room: "...a user can convey information objects to pre-specified groups of users...". I would interpret that inclusively, with the "specified group" meaning a distributed flood-based non-presubscribed conference as well. But X.402/7.2.3 says that "Each MS is associated with one UA". I'm not familiar enough with the language and conventions of the Red and Blue Books to know where to look next, or even to be sure I've found what I'm looking for. Should I look more closely at X.402, X.411, X.413, or somewhere else that distributed conferencing issues have been considered? Has ISO/CCITT arrived at an alternative to the current news technology, or will the ISO world run on the moral equivalent of the distribution lists that have been largely discarded in the Internet world? Any pointers are appreciated.
harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no (07/18/90)
In <BOB.90Jul17140758@volitans.MorningStar.Com>, Bob writes: > X.400/15.4 "MHS Security Capabilities" include several that seem > problematic for news - particularly proof of delivery, flow > confidentiality, and message sequence integrity, which raise > architectural issues with news' flood transport algorithm. The other > authentication, content confidentiality, and content integrity matters > are at least workable. MT (Message Transfer service) non-delivery > indication seems like something to avoid in a news-like environment, > given the rampant fluidity of news transport connectivity. As a general hint: I think that people reading X.400/88 think "Do I have to implement all this?" The answer is NO. What should be implemented (IMHO) is the ability to reject messages if they have used an extension that the currently receiving mailbox does not support. So, X.400/88 implementations should really only support what is required for the applicatons that they will support. An X.400 based route into the "OSI news service" would have little reason to support proof-of-delivery, if the model is such that "delivery" in X.40 terms occurs at the reader's site, and not at the X.400-to-"OSI news" interface. So any message asking for proof-of-delivery and saying that this is critical for relay or delivery, should be rudely rejected. So should ANY message asking for delivery notification, for that instance. (except for "checkgroups equivalents????") 10.000 delivery notifications will increase network load appreciably. Good luck to you! Harald Tveit Alvestrand
tim@piglet.planet.bt.co.uk (Tim Maude,B81 G61,6734,) (07/19/90)
> (I asked on the general ISO group last week and drew only silence, so > perhaps the X.400 groups would be more appropriate. I'm relatively > new to ISO stuff, and perhaps this is an old topic. If so, please > forgive me and help me come up-to-date!) > > RFC822 is to RFC1036 as X.400 is to ??? > > (or, alternatively phrased,) > > mail is to news as MHS IPM is to ??? > > ..... more stuff There is no real equivalent to the news in OSI yet. A bit of history... In X.400 84 the only provision for one-to-many communication is to address a message to a distribution list that you hold in your own user agent. Many people thought that this was not good enough (including me) and complained - suggesting alternatives. The one alternative that got picked up (or rather added) in the 1988 X.400 was distribution lists. The consept of the distribution list in 88 was that of a distribution point which held the distribution list. You mail to that point and it distributes on from there. These can be nested, so that one distribution point can mail out to another and so one (with special prototcols to avoid looping - thus making the 88 and 84 prototcols subtely incompatible). Now you can try and duplicate the news by means of 88 DLs (as they are known). Clearly, the distribution list has to cover the whole world and there has to be a separate DL for each newsgroup. Each message sent to the newsgroup would have to be mailed to the root of the DL first and then be expanded upon from there. This mechanism is not the same as the news. I would like to put out a request to those of you who understand the news protocols a bit better than me (that won't be hard) to put out a simple explanation of who it works - maybe we can draw up a list of differences. In conclusion - the ISO world has not realised the benefits of the news yet and so it has not investigated it. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Maude RT7431 email: tim@planet.bt.co.uk British Telecom Research Laboratories phone: +44 473 646734 Martlesham Heath fax: +44 473 642163 Ipswich IP5 7RE U.K. -------------------------------------------------------------------
ROTONDI%CSATA.IATIN.IT@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Domenico Rotondi) (07/25/90)
On Wed, 18 Jul 90 01:06:40 +0200 you said: >(I asked on the general ISO group last week and drew only silence, so >perhaps the X.400 groups would be more appropriate. I'm relatively >new to ISO stuff, and perhaps this is an old topic. If so, please >forgive me and help me come up-to-date!) > >RFC822 is to RFC1036 as X.400 is to ??? > > (or, alternatively phrased,) > >mail is to news as MHS IPM is to ??? There is nothing ready at the moment. ISO (specifically SC18/WG4 Special working group on MOTIS) is starting working on, what ISO calls, Group Communication. At the moment there are only some very preliminary working document listing, essencially, the set of functionalities this new service will provide. Also in the phase of defition is the exact scope the Group Communication will cover (i.e. just providing Bulletin Boards functionalities or also Computer Conferencing or also general functionalities to support group work). > >I see in the Blue Book X.400/7.4 that "One MS [Message Store] acts on >behalf of only one user (one O/R address), i.e. it does not provide a >common or shared MS capability to several users." In X.400/14 You're right, the MS is just a single-user mail repository. It has nothing to do with supporting tools for DL or news. >Should I look more closely at X.402, X.411, X.413, or somewhere else >that distributed conferencing issues have been considered? Has >ISO/CCITT arrived at an alternative to the current news technology, or >will the ISO world run on the moral equivalent of the distribution >lists that have been largely discarded in the Internet world? Any >pointers are appreciated. > I hope I've answered to your questions. For the time being (or better in the near future, when X.400-88 MTAs will appear) the only available services will the the one based on DL. We hope to have a rapid developement of the Group Communication standards so that, also in the OSI world, could be used advanced communications facilities. Ciao Dom --------------------------------- Domenico Rotondi Tecnopolis - CSATA Novus Ortus Strada Provinciale per CASAMASSIMA Km.3 70010 VALENZANO (BARI) ITALY Tel +39-80-8770227 / 8770111 Tlx 810371 TECPOL I Ttx 2221-818506 CSATABA I Fax +39-80-651868 (CCITT G3) EARN ROTONDI @ IBACSATA or ROTONDI @ CSATA.IATIN.IT or dom @ lapd.csata.iatin.it
JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ) (08/05/90)
There is no "usenet news"-type standard under OSI at present. However, work is ongoing to produce such a standard. I am myself very active in this work. If all goes well, we will have something ready in 1992, when a new version of X.400 is to be finished.
kit@gateway.mitre.ORG (08/09/90)
It is possible to do group communications using an X.400 Message Store, though it may require proprietary extensions to the implementation (but not necessarily to the P7 protocol). One reference is a paper submitted (from a university in Portugal or Spain) titled "Group communication mailbox server accessible through a standard mailbox client", 19 pages, a paper which I think is to be presented at the IFIP MHS'90 conference. If you are interested in more about the conference, contact "stef@nrtc.northrop.com" (Sorry, Stef, I didn't check with you before publishing your net address here.) Kit Lueder, MITRE Corporation.