⭐ 欢迎来到虫虫下载站! | 📦 资源下载 📁 资源专辑 ℹ️ 关于我们
⭐ 虫虫下载站

📄 rfc1615.txt

📁 著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.
💻 TXT
📖 第 1 页 / 共 3 页
字号:
Network Working Group                                        J. HouttuinRequest for Comments: 1615                              RARE SecretariatRARE Technical Report: 9                                      J. CraigieCategory: Informational                               Joint Network Team                                                                May 1994                 Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)Status of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of   this memo is unlimited.Scope   In the context of a European pilot for an X.400(88) messaging   service, this document compares such a service to its X.400(84)   predecessor.  It is aimed at a technical audience with a knowledge of   electronic mail in general and X.400 protocols in particular.Abstract   This document compares X.400(88) to X.400(84) and describes what   problems can be anticipated in the migration, especially considering   the migration from the existing X.400(84) infrastructure created by   the COSINE MHS project to an X.400(88) infrastructure. It not only   describes the technical complications, but also the effect the   transition will have on the end users, especially concerning   interworking between end users of the 84 and the 88 services.Table of Contents   1. New Functionality                                              2   2. OSI Supporting Layers                                          3   3. General Extension Mechanism                                    5   4. Interworking                                                   5      4.1. Mixed 84/88 Domains                                       5      4.2. Generation of OR-Name Extensions from X.400(84)           6      4.3. Distribution List Interworking with X.400(84)             8      4.4. P2 Interworking                                          10   5. Topology for Migration                                        11   6. Conclusion                                                    12   7. Security Considerations                                       13   Appendix A - DL-expanded and Redirected Messages in X.400(84)    14   Appendix B - Bibliography                                        14   Appendix C - MHS Terminology                                     15Houttuin & Craigie                                              [Page 1]RFC 1615         Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)          May 1994   Appendix D - Abbreviations                                       16   Authors' Addresses                                               171. New Functionality   Apart from the greater maturity of the standard and the fact that it   makes proper use of the Presentation Layer, the principal features of   most use to the European R&D world in X.400(88) not contained in   X.400(84) are:    - A powerful mechanism for arbitrarily nested Distribution      Lists including the ability for DL owners to control access      to their lists and to control the destination of nondelivery      reports. The current endemic use of DLs in the research      community makes this a fundamental requirement.    - The Message Store (MS) and its associated protocol, P7. The      Message Store provides a server for remote User Agents (UAs)      on Workstations and PCs enabling messages to be held for      their recipient, solving the problems of non-continuous      availability and variability of network addresses of such      UAs. It provides powerful selection mechanisms allowing the      user to select messages from the store to be transferred to      the workstation/PC. This facility is not catered for      adequately by the P3 protocol of X.400(84) and provides a      major incentive for transition.    - Use of X.500 Directories. Support for use of Directory Names      in MHS will allow a transition from use of O/R Addresses to      Directory Names when X.500 Directories become widespread,      thus removing the need for users to know about MHS      topological addressing components.    - The provision of message Security services including      authentication, confidentiality, integrity and non-      repudiation as well as secure access between MHS components      may be important for a section of the research community.    - Redirection of messages, both by the recipient if      temporarily unable to receive them, and by the originator in      the event of failure to deliver to the intended recipient.    - Use of additional message body encodings such as ISO 8613      ODA (Office Document Architecture) reformattable documents or      proprietary word processor formats.Houttuin & Craigie                                              [Page 2]RFC 1615         Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)          May 1994    - Physical Delivery services that cater for the delivery of an      electronic message on a physical medium (such as paper)      through the normal postal delivery services to a recipient      who (presumably) does not use electronic mail.    - The use of different body parts. In addition to the      extensible externally defined body parts, the most common      types are predefined in the standard.  In order to give end-      users a real advantage as compared to other technologies, the      following body-parts should be supported as a minimum:         - IA5         - Message         - G3FAX         - External            - General Text            - Others      The last bullet should be interpreted as follows: all UAs      should be configurable to use any type of externally defined      body part, but as a minimum General Text can be generated and      read.    - The use of extended character sets, both in O/R addresses      and in the General Text extended bodypart. As a minimum, the      character sets as described in the European profiles will be      supported. A management domain may choose as an internal      matter which character sets it wants to support in      generating, but all user agents must be able to copy (in      local address books and in replies) any O/R address, even if      it contains character sets it cannot interpret itself.2. OSI Supporting Layers   The development of OSI Upper Layer Architecture since 1984 allows the   new MHS standards to sit on the complete OSI stack, unlike X.400(84).   A new definition of the Reliable Transfer Service (RTS), ISO 9066,   has a mode of operation, Normal-mode, which uses ACSE and the OSI   Presentation Layer. It also defines another mode compatible with   X.410(84) RTS that was intended only for interworking with X.400(84)   systems.   However, there are differences between the conformance requirements   of ISO MOTIS and CCITT X.400(88) for mandatory support for the   complete OSI stack. ISO specify use of Normal-mode RTS as a mandatory   requirement with X.410-mode RTS as an additional option, whereas   CCITT require X.410-mode and have Normal-mode optional. The ISO   standard identifies three MTA types to provide options in RTS modes:Houttuin & Craigie                                              [Page 3]RFC 1615         Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)          May 1994    - MTA Type A supports only Normal-mode RTS, and provides      interworking within a PRMD and with other PRMDs (conforming      to ISO 10021), and with ADMDs which have complete      implementations of X.400(88) or which conform to ISO 10021.    - MTA Type B adds to the functionality of MTA type A the      ability to interwork with ADMDs implementing only the minimal      requirements of X.400(88), by requiring support for X.410-      mode RTS in addition to Normal-mode.    - MTA Type C adds to the functionality of MTA type B the      ability to interwork with external X.400(84) Management      Domains (MDs, i.e., PRMDs and ADMDs), by requiring support for      downgrading (see 5.1) to the X.400(84) P1 protocol.   The interworking between ISO and CCITT conformant systems is   summarised in the following table:                                      CCITT                            X.400(84)       X.400(88)                                         minimal   complete                                          implementation   ISO 10021/   MTA Type A     N            N         Y   MOTIS        MTA Type B     N            Y         Y                MTA Type C     Y            Y         Y            Table 1: Interworking ISO <-> CCITT systems   The RTS conformance difference would totally prevent interworking   between the two versions of the standard if implementations never   contained more than the minimum requirements for conformance, but in   practice many 88 implementations will be extensions of 84 systems,   and will thus support both modes of RTS. (At the moment we are aware   of only one product that doesn't support Normal mode.)   Both ISO and CCITT standards require P7 (and P3) to be supported   directly over the Remote Operations Service (ROS), ISO 9072, and use   Normal-mode presentation (and not X.410-mode). Both allow optionally   ROS over RTS (in case the Transport Service doesn't provide an   adequately reliable service), again using Normal-mode and not X.410-   mode.   CCITT made both Normal and X.410 mode mandatory in its X.400(92)   version, and it is expected that the 94 version will have the X.410   mode as an option only.Houttuin & Craigie                                              [Page 4]RFC 1615         Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)          May 19943. General Extension Mechanism   One of the major assets in ISO 10021/X.400(88) is the extension   mechanism. This is used to carry most of the extensions defined in   these standards, but its principal benefit will be in reducing the   trauma of transitions to future versions of the standards. Provided   that implementations of the 88 standards do not try to place   restrictions on the values that may be present, any future extension   will be relayed by these implementations when appropriate (i.e., when   the extension is not critical), thus providing a painless migration   to new versions of the standards.4. Interworking4.1. Mixed 84/88 Domains   ISO 10021-6/X.419(88) defines rules for interworking with X.400(84),   called downgrading. As X.400 specifies the interconnection of MDs,   these rules define the actions necessary by an X.400(88) MD to   communicate with an X.400(84) MD. The interworking rules thus apply   at domain boundaries. Although it would not be difficult to extend   these to rules to convert Internal Trace formats which might be   thought a sufficient addition to allow mixed X.400(84)/X.400(88)   domains, the problems involved in attempting to define mixed 84/88   domains are not quite that simple.   The principle problem is in precisely defining the standard that   would be used between MTAs within an X.400(84) domain, as X.400(84)   only defines the interconnection of MDs. In practice, MTA   implementations either use X.400(84) unmodified, or X.400(84) with   the addition of Internal Trace from the first MOTIS DIS (DIS 8883),   or support MOTIS as defined in DIS 8505, DIS 8883, and DIS 9065. The   second option is recommended in the NBS Implementors Agreements, and   the third option is in conformance with the CEN/CENELEC MHS   Functional Standard [1], which requires as a minimum tolerance of all   "original MOTIS" protocol extensions. An 84 MD must decide which of   these options it will adopt, and then require all its MTAs to adopt   (or at least be compatible with) this choice. No doubt this is one of   the reasons for the almost total absence currently of mixed- vendor   X.400(84) MDs in the European R&D MHS community. The fact that none   of these three options for communication between MTAs within a domain   have any status within the standardisation bodies accounts for the   absence from ISO 10021/X.400(88) of detailed rules for interworking   within mixed 84/88 domains.   Use of the first option, unmodified X.400(84), carries the danger of   undetectable routing loops occurring. Although these can only occur   if MTAs have inconsistent routing tables, the absence of standardisedHouttuin & Craigie                                              [Page 5]RFC 1615         Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)          May 1994   methods of disseminating routing information makes this a possibility   which if it occurred might cause severe disruption before being   detected. The only addition to the interworking rules needed for this   case is the deletion of Internal Trace when downgrading a message.   Use of the second option, X.400(84) plus Internal Trace, allows the   detection and prevention of routing loops. Details of the mapping   between original-MOTIS Internal Trace and the Internal Trace of ISO   10021 can be found in Annex A. This should be applied not only when   downgrading from 88 to 84, but also in reverse when an 84 MPDU is   received by the 84/88 Interworking MTA. If the 84 domain properly   implements routing loop detection algorithms, then this will allow   completely consistent reception of messages by an 84 recipient even   after DL expansion or Redirection within that domain (but see also   section 5.3).  Unfortunately, the first DIS MOTIS like X.400(84) left   far too much to inference, so not all implementors may have   understood that routing loop detection algorithms must only consider   that part of the trace after the last redirection flag in the trace   sequence.   Use of the third option, tolerance of all original-MOTIS extensions,   would in principle allow a still higher level of interworking between   the 84 and 88 systems. However, no implementations are known which do   more than relay the syntax of original-MOTIS extensions: there is no   capability to generate these protocol elements or ability to   correctly interpret their semantics.   The choice between the first two options for mixed domains can be   left to individual management domains. It has no impact on other   domains provided the topology recommended in section 5 is adopted.4.2. Generation of OR-Name Extensions from X.400(84)

⌨️ 快捷键说明

复制代码 Ctrl + C
搜索代码 Ctrl + F
全屏模式 F11
切换主题 Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键 ?
增大字号 Ctrl + =
减小字号 Ctrl + -