2.1.19 LDAP Schema for E-mail Routing (laser) bof

Current Meeting Report

Minutes, reported by Morteza Ansari

A proposal to advance to WG proposal was put by John Beck
Comments from the attendees:
- Great idea, aliasing / forwarding issues should be tackled with in this WG.

Bruce Steinback commented that mailgroups do not necessarily work the same and therefore having a standard schema for various implementation is practically impossible (no server dependent component in the schema). Mailgroup management is another possibility for schema proposals. Currently there are 4 oc's used in Netscape implementation: one is very implementation specific, others are possible candidates for standardization (mail recipient, mailgroup, mailgroup management).

It would be difficult to generalize and try to create a schema to address all information, however if we only pick the alias information it simplifies the problem.

How to handle mail forwarding for local addressing.

Bruce Steinback (from Netscape) will revive his draft and try to minimize the mailgroup object to make it simple and general for most users. He is planning to revive it by the end of the year. (OC along with the description of the implementation)

Bob Morgan said that without describing the problem and identifying all issues it is very difficult to come up with a schema. He suggested that a model should be added so that implementors can understand both the problem and the solution.

JohnB suggested that we may need a third draft to address the issue of forwarding. It was suggested that the WS charter should include routing information. A proposal was put forward to see if the group wants an official WG.

Original design attempt was for within the intranet (internal), and addressing external domain is not necessarily included here, and there should be a distinction between forwarding and routing. The question was raised whether there are any real differences between forwarding / routing, and the answer was that this is a policy issue rather than standardization issue. BobM suggested that even though technically there is no difference between the two, operationally there are differences. Forwarding might be multi-valued, whereas routing has historically been single-valued. Hans suggested that it should not be limited in the design with a recommendation to the appropriate usage / value.

When do DSN's are generated? In case of aliases, how does that work? There might be a distinction between routing / forwarding.

Overall the consensus was that there are differences.

Issues with lachman laser mail routing:
How to handle multiple entries: If there are multiples, use none! It was pointed out that "same DN multiple hosts" is used at least by one vendor (for testing at least). However, most people agreed that this should be disallowed, a vote was taken on removing it: rough consensus.

Can mailRoutingAddress contain external domain: it was suggested that any value should be allowed, and is more of an operating issue rather than standard (could be mentioned in the document as operational suggestion). ALLOWED as a may.

Change mailLocalAddress to mailPublicAddress: mailLocalAddress it is!

Bring back mail attribute: Netscape & Sun use mail as addressable address (?) this could be used by MTAs. there was some concern about overloading the attribute and the need for distinguishing between routable information and publishing the address in the directory. There was also a question about compatibility issues. There was no consensus for this and the issue was referred to the mailing list.

Header rewriting: separate draft? mailCanonicalName? JohnB suggested this should be out of scope for this. Consensus was to reject rewriting.

John to work with Keith to create the WG after the charter is defined.

Action items:
JohnB: create & post the charter to the list and get the ball rolling in creating a WG.
Bruce: revise his draft and send it to the list (see above)


None received.