Subject: Issues from directory meeting of June 11th

From: "Richard L. Daugherty (8-444-6838)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 93 12:50:55 EDT

This report covers the directory meeting held after the ciw closing
session on Friday, 6/11. This report is being posted to ciw-general,
ciw-sig-dir and ciw-sig-osi-tp.  The meeting is applicable to each
mail list for the following reasons:

        ciw-general -- After the CIW plenary session
                failed to reach consensus on advancing the
                directory proposal to AP, this meeting
                was held to clarify and document the concerns.
        ciw-sig-osi-tp -- As will be seen from the documented
                issues, several of them are an outgrowth of
                the work to map CPI-C over OSI-TP.  The documentation,
                understanding and resolution of these issues will
                require OSI-TP expertise.
        ciw-sig-dir -- The meeting was held to discuss issues which
                prevented the advancement of the directory proposal
                to AP status.

The people in attendance at the meeting were:
        Rich Daugherty
        John Fetvedt (part)
        Jeff Hildebrand
        Mel Jones
        Jerry Kellenbenz
        Lance Myers
        Debbie Prevost
        Daniel Richard (part)
        Jack Sanders (part)

The following is the list of issues identified or discussed during the meeting.
Note that this
report specifically does NOT attempt to address how or where these issues
should be handled.  Rather it attempts solely to get the issues
down on "paper" so they can be worked on appropriately.

Issue #1:  The source for the addressing information required to
        start a logical connection (A-Associate service request to
        create an OSI Association) is not identified nor specified.

Issue #2:  The interaction/relationships between CPI-C and
        TX, XA, XA+, XATP etc are not described anywhere.

Issue #3:  Any object placed in the directory should use a common,
        standard encoding scheme (eg ASN.1).  The directory
        proposal uses a CPI-C unique fashion of encoding.

Issue #4:  The information for OSI logical connections should
        be represented in the directory using a common, standard
        syntax and semantics.

Issue #5:  Lack of understanding of proposed relationships between
        symdest name, PFID and PDN.  (Not discussed as of 1:00pm.)

Issue #6:  Unclear if the directory proposal enabled a specific set
        of needed function.  (Not discussed as of 1:00pm.  A better
        description is provided below.)

Now for the background/detail on each issue.

Issue #1:  The source for the addressing information required to
        start a logical connection (A-Associate service request to
        create an OSI Association) is not identified nor specified.
Detail:

        OSI-TP picture for the following write-up.

                 "Application" aka "TPSU"

                                Allocate
                           ZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD?
                           3                             3
                           3    CPI-C                    3
                           @DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDY
       A-ASSOCIATE              TP-BEGIN-DIALOGUE

         ZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD?
         3OSI-TP                                         3
         3  ZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD?    3
         3  3              MACF                     3    3
         3  @DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDY    3
         3                                               3
         3    ZDDDDDDDDDDDDD?         ZD?       ZD?     3
         3    3 S  3TP-ASE   3         3S3       3S3     3
         3    3 A  DDDDDDDDD
         3A3       3A3     3
         3    3 C  3ACSE     3         3C3       3C3     3
         3    3 F  DDDDDDDDD
         3F3       3F3     3
         3    3    3CCR      3         @DY       @DY     3
         3    3    DDDDDDDDD
                           3
         3    3    3U-ASE    3                           3
         3    3    DDDDDDDDD
                           3
         3    3    3         3                           3
         3    @DDDDDDDDDDDDDY                           3
         3                                               3
         3                                               3
         3                                               3
         3                                               3
         @DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDY

      The "top" of the OSI-TP "box" is requested to perform an
      A-Associate in order to cause an association to be created
      by the ACSE within a SACF.  Later the top of the OSI-TP box
      is requested to perform a TP-Begin_dialogue. The TP-BEGIN-DIALOGUE,
      processed by the TP-ASE, requires the existence of an association
      in order to successfully complete.  The "addressing" information
      needed on the TP-BEGIN-DIALOGUE is AP_Title, AE_Qualifier,
      Application_Context, TPSU_Title (aka TPN) and Class of Service
      (aka MODE).  The addressing information needed on the A-Associate
      includes local NSAP, destination NSAP, Presentation Address, etc...

      CPI-C has not documented where/how the A-Associate addressing
      information is acquired.  Specifically, the directory usage
      proposal does not describe how a distributed directory is used
      to resolve/locate the needed addressing information.

Issue #2:  The interaction/relationships between CPI-C and
        TX, XA, XA+, XATP etc are not described anywhere.
Detail:  The relationship between CPI-C and other X/Open
        interfaces are not defined.

Issue #3:  Any object placed in the directory should use a common,
        standard encoding scheme (eg ASN.1).  The directory
        proposal uses a CPI-C unique fashion of encoding.
Detail:  The attributes of directory objects should be encoded
        using a standard encoding scheme.  A CPI-C specific
        encoding scheme should not be used for the program
        binding information.

Issue #4:  The information for OSI logical connections should
        be represented in the directory using a common, standard
        syntax and semantics.
Detail:  Very similar to issue #3, except deals with the directory
        representation of the directory objects needed to
        resolve the A-Associate related/used addressing information.

Issue #5:  Lack of understanding of proposed relationships between
        symdest name, PFID and PDN.
Detail: This was not discussed as of the close of the meeting.  As
        such no further detail is available.

Issue #6:  Unclear if the directory proposal enabled a specific set
        of needed function.
Detail:  This was Lance Myers' concern - Mel, Rich and Lance
        discussed this requirement after the general meeting
        concluded.

        Lance's need is to be able to allocate to a TP which
        is a member of a "named set" of TPs.  From the
        discussion, it appears that server objects,
        PFIDs and DSNS as defined in the appendix meets Lance's
        needs.  Lance is going to re-evaluate whether or not
        the directory proposal (as supplemented by the appendix)
        meets his specific needs.

Report submitted by Rich Daugherty