From brusil@snad.ncsl.nist.gov Tue Nov 1 14:18:12 1994 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 14:13:28 EST From: Dr. Paul J. Brusil - Consultant Message-Id: <9411011913.AA23293@snad.ncsl.nist.gov> To: ewos-mhs-mgt@ukerna.ac.uk, lebeck_sue@tandem.com, nmsig@nemo.ncsl.nist.gov, snmsigl@nemo.ncsl.nist.gov Subject: NMSIG-94/377 LIAISON re: MHS Management & RTS Management Cc: aow-nmsig@stc.ipa.go.jp, ewos-egnm@external.iihe.ac.be Status: R NMSIG-94/377 LIAISON REGARDING MHS MANAGEMENT & RTS MANAGEMENT Date: 24 Oct 94 14:27:00 +1700 From: LEBECK_SUE@tandem.com To: davison@gb.gold-400.net-tel.bsi Cc: brusil@snad.ncsl.nist.gov, ifip-emailmgt@ics.uci.edu, rjesmajian@attmail.com, epg@gateway.mitre.org, mtopping@attmail.com, riess@mltvax.enet.doc.com Subject: Re: MHS Management, RTS Management To: Suzanne Davison, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC18/WG4 Secretariat From: Sue Lebeck, IFIP Email Management Chair Date: October 24, 1994 Suzanne -- Thank you very much for sending me the detailed attachments which discuss the overall acceptance of IFIP Email Management's contribution to your MHS Management work. This contribution was entitled "Response to ISO document WG 4 N2670" and was dated June 14, 1994. Our comments were contributed as a US National Body comment, to expedite processing (Thank you, Rudolf Riess and Dick Jesmajian.) I understand that the comments were discussed and largely accepted by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC18. This contribution included: - proposals to "genericize" the MHS Management definitions to allow applicability to non-X.400 messaging systems: these were accepted, with slight modifications. - comments on definitional inconsistencies: these were largely accepted. - proposed additional statistics; these came from two sources: - IFIP Email Management "Strawman MIB" - IETF's Mail Monitoring MIB (RFC 1566): many of these additions were accepted. We are pleased to see that these were well received and incorporated into your work. As part of the attachments you sent me, I also noted that, in response to a UK National Body Comment, it was "agreed that RTS management is out of scope of the MTA management document." I understand that you have removed the RTS package from the MTA managment document. I want therefore to alert you to the attached. It is informal feedback related to a contribution that IFIP Email Management, along with several OIW Special Interest Groups (Net Mgmt, X.400, Directory), made to the Upper Layers Management group (SC 21) re: RTS management. We also believed that RTS was outside of MTA management scope, and recommended that it be handled as part of Upper Layers Management. We encouraged the Upper Layers management group to work this out with the MHS and Directory Management groups and to come to agreement re: a way forward. The Upper Layers Management group, as of the date of the attached note, expressed a lack of expertise in this area, and a proposal that MHS and Directory management address RTS themselves. I believe they intended to contact you directly on this topic, and perhaps they have by now. However you work it out amongst yourselves is acceptable; our intention is only to express a preference, and to call out that this coordination issue exists. We wish you the best as you work to resolve this. Again, thank you for your receptiveness to our efforts. Best Regards, Sue Lebeck Chair, IFIP Email Management working group ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 08-04-94 FROM SMTPGATE (epg@gateway.mitre.org) Folks: Our liaison on upper layers management was numbered ISO/IEC SC 21 WG 4 N 1904. I realized to my horror that this was the March version! I submitted the latest version which I had as an e-mail printout, and that was numbered as ISO/IEC SC 21 WG 4 N 1904 rev. For the future, we need to see why the OIW liaisons are not reaching the Secretariat on time. The OIW liaison on Directory was not there either, so I submitted it at Southampton. Paul Golick of IBM ran the meeting on management of upper layers. It was attended by systems management people and by Cherry Tom and Kala Marietta from Upper Layers and me for Directory and OIW. The base document was SC21 8434. No one wanted to edit the output document, but John Westgate from the UK said he would do it if no one else volunteered. The UK wanted the document divided in two: one for generic upper layers objects and one for management objects. This was approved at the Systems Management plenary. Cherry said that the Active Association object class is the same as the ACSE invocation, which is derived from single peer connection in GDMO. The editor will add a comment to ACSE invokation to say that it is used to represent active associations. The group would not agree to add counters to the ACSE invocation object because they think that counters are properly done at the transport layer, where multiplexing is done. For TP, the counters are in the transport connection MO. For TCP/IP, they are in MIB2. There was resistance to adding an attribute for time established. Kala asked why time terminated wasn't there because the duration of the association was the interesting aspect. Paul Golick said that the log system has a clock and could record times. He questioned the assumption that a system has a clock. The managed objects for other layers include the addressing information. The application context is included in the ACSE invocation object class. The model is to be redone combining the UK position that there should be one model and the US position that there should be multiple inheritance. This is related to whether there are MOs for each layer or not (monolithic versus layers). RTSE was not defined by any SC21 working group. (WG8, CASE Group, Jim Quigley is doing defects for RTSE.) The RTSE managed object could be considered the responsiblility of WG4, which is editing the Upper Layers document, SC21 8434; however, the group has no expertise in RTSE. Bottom line: MHS and Directory need to define the MO for RTSE. We need to check with SC18 to see what they have done in this area. The next meeting of WG 4 will be in Germany the second week in December. John plans to have the document ready by the first of September. His contact information is: Mr. John H. Westgate J Westgate (Consultants) Limited 70 Fordhook Avenue, London W5 3LR England Phone +44-81-993-4984 Fax +44-81-993-4980 X.400: /C=GB;/A=GOLD 400;/P=Y-NET,/U=SP1/G=JOHN/S=WESTGATE The X.400 address looks a little strange. I don't know whether the extra punctuation is a typo or not. I copied it from the attendance list. It;s probably: X.400: /C=GB/A=GOLD 400/P=Y-NET/OU=SP1/G=JOHN/S=WESTGATE Ella Gardner MITRE