Subject: Minutes of Directory SIG at March CIW

From: "Mel Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 15:15:35 EST

Distribution:  Directory SIG list

Minutes of March Directory SIG Meeting
--------------------------------------
The directory SIG met for about three hours March 16, 1993.  We first
reviewed the contribution on CPIC use of the DCE directory that was
distributed at the December CIW, then discussed the specific limitations
of the DCE cell directory (e.g., incomplete support of the X.500
specification).  The remainder of the working session was spent defining
the details of the contribution that would be applicable to any dis-
tributed directory.

Agreement was reached on the following points:

o   CPIC should not incorporate "directory like" calls into its interface,
    but should instead include only the most basic function.

o   Programs requiring more advanced directory capabilities (such as
    searching based on server or resource) would be expected to use some
    other directory- specific interface first.  After finding a DN that
    pointed to the specific program installation (a PIDN), it would pass this
    PIDN to CPIC.

o   The material in the December contribution defining how CPIC could achieve
    parity with RPC directory functionality (definition of the DSNS inter-
    face, definition of server, profile, and server-group objects) should not
    be part of CPIC.  Instead the material could be included as an appendix
    to show implementers how they *might* provide a directory interface on
    DCE.

o   It was agreed that a similar appendix defining relevant "added function"
    for an X.500 directory would be useful.  Jeff Hildebrand said he would
    investigate getting an X.500 guru to write such an appendix for the ref-
    erence.

o   Agreement was reached that the actual changes for CPIC would be limited
    to the following items:

    1.  Addition of Set_Partner_ID call, as defined in the contribution.

    2.  Addition of Extract_Partner_Binding, as defined in the contribution.

    3.  Addition of description of the Program Installation object.

    4.  Appropriate changes to the terms/concepts section, addition of a
        program scenario, and other changes through the book to define the
        calls (e.g., return-codes, etc. etc.).

The conclusion of the meeting was to agree on Approved Direction for all of
the above.  We also agreed to work towards production of an Approved Pages
document by the June meeting.  I hope to distributed a first-draft of the
document before the end of April.

Regards,
Mel