Browse Prior Art Database

Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains in the GO-MHS Community (RFC1649)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002485D
Original Publication Date: 1994-Jul-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-12
Document File: 14 page(s) / 18K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

R. Hagens: AUTHOR [+1]

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1649: DOI

Abstract

The goal of this document is to unite regionally operated X.400 services on the various continents into one GO-MHS Community (as seen from an end-user's point of view). This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 13% of the total text.

Network Working Group R. Hagens Request for Comments: 1649 Advanced Network & Services, Inc. Category: Informational A. Hansen UNINETT July 1994

Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains in the GO-MHS Community

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.

1. Introduction

There are several large, operational X.400 services currently deployed. Many of the organizations in these services are connected to the Internet. A number of other Internet-connected organizations are beginning to operate internal X.400 services (for example, U.S. government organizations following U.S. GOSIP). The motivation for this document is to foster a Global Open Message Handling System (GO-MHS) Community that has full interoperability with the existing E-mail service based on RFC-822 (STD-11).

The goal of this document is to unite regionally operated X.400 services on the various continents into one GO-MHS Community (as seen from an end-user’s point of view). Examples of such regional services are the COSINE MHS Service in Europe and the XNREN service in the U.S.

A successful GO-MHS Community is dependent on decisions at both the national and international level. National X.400 service providers are responsible for the implementation of the minimum requirements defined in this document. In addition to these minimum requirements, national requirements may be defined by each national service provider.

This document refers to other documents which are published as RFCs. These documents are [1], [2], [3], [4], [6] and [7] in the reference list.

This document handles issues concerning X.400 1984 and X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading. Issues concerning pure X.400 1988 are left for further study.

Hagens & Hansen [Page 1]

RFC 1649 X.400 Management in GO-MHS July 1994

We are grateful to Allan Cargille and Lawrence Landweber for their input and guidance on this paper. This paper is also a product of discussions in the IETF X.400 Operations WG and the RARE WG-MSG (former RARE WG1 (on MHS)).

1.1. Terminology

This document defines requirements, recommendations and conventions. Throughout the document, the following definitions apply: a requirement is specified with the word shall. A recommendation is specified with the word should. A convention is specified with the word might. Conventions are intended to make life easier for RFC-822 systems that don’t follow the host requirements.

1.2. Profiles

Different communities have different profile requirements. The following is a list of such profiles.

o U.S. GOSIP - unspecified version o ENV - 41201 o UK GOSIP for X.400(88)

In the case when mail traffic is going from the RFC-822 mail service to the GO-MHS Community, the automatic return of contents when mail is non-delivered should be requested by RFC 1327 gateways and should be supported at the MTA that generates the non-delivery report. Howeve...

Processing...
Loading...