Subject: Recommendations on handling the June 11th issues

From: "Richard L. Daugherty (8-444-6838)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 93 13:09:30 EDT

Here are my recommendations on where and how each of the issues
from the June 11th directory meeting should be handled.

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.
Recommend:  That this issue be moved to the OSI-TP sig as a concern
        against the OSI-TP proposal.  This issue is unrelated to
        the directory proposal, in that, the problem would exist
        even if the directory proposal did not exist.

Issue #2:  The interaction/relationships between CPI-C and
        TX, XA, XA+, XATP etc are not described anywhere.
Recommend:  That this issue be either handled by the framework sig or
        left to X/Open, since the other interfaces are all X/Open
        interfaces.

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.
Recommend:  That this issue be handled by the directory sig.
        The rationale for the current proposal needs to be
        documented and the ciw given the choice on the encoding
        direction.

Issue #4:  The information for OSI logical connections should
        be represented in the directory using a common, standard
        syntax and semantics.
Recommend:  That this issue be moved to the OSI-TP sig as being
        directly related to the resolution of issue number 1.

Issue #5:  Lack of understanding of proposed relationships between
        symdest name, PFID and PDN.
Recommend:  Given that there was insufficient time in the June 11th
        meeting for discussing this issue,  it should be handled in
        the directory sig.  Whoever does not understand the proposed
        relationship is welcomed to raise questions.

Issue #6:  Unclear if the directory proposal enabled a specific set
        of needed function.
Recommend:  That this issue be deferred to Lance Myers for him to
        determine if he still has any concerns.

So in summary, I recommend that the issues be "handed out" as follows:

        Issue 1 - osi tp sig
        Issue 2 - either framework sig or deferred to X/Open
        Issue 3 - directory sig
        Issue 4 - osi tp sig
        Issue 5 - directory sig
        Issue 6 - Lance Myers

Much e-mail discussion needs to occur between now and September if
we are going to have any progress on these issues.

Rich D.