RFC1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network Environment Table Format V3 for Static Routing
Download in PDF format Download in text format
Related keywords:
(X400)
Network Working Group U. Eppenberger
Request for Comments: 1465 SWITCH
May 1993
Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services
Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network Environment
Table Format V3 for Static Routing
Status of this Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. Introduction
The usage of the X.400 Message Handling System (MHS) is growing
rapidly, especially in the commercial world but much interest can
also be found in the academic and research community. New networks
and new addresses come into use each and every day. The underlying
technology for different X.400 networks can vary depending on the
transport network and the X.400 MHS implementations used. As a large
number of X.400 implementations now support multiple stacks, this
offers the chance of implementing a world wide message handling
service using the same electronic mail standard and, therefore,
without the need of gateways with service reduction and without the
restriction to a single common transport network. This, however,
leads to several problems for the MHS manager, two of which are:
- Where do I route new X.400 addresses and
- How do I connect to a MHS domain that uses an underlying
technology that I do not support.
This document proposes short term solutions to these problems. It
proposes a strategy for maintaining and distributing routing
information and shows how messages can travel over different networks
by using multi stack MTAs as relays. Document formats and
coordination procedures bridge the gap until an X.500 directory
service is ready to store the needed connectivity and routing
information. The format has been designed to allow the information
to be stored in an X.500 directory service while managers without
directory service access may still use a table based approach.
The routing structure proposed can be applied to a global MHS service
Eppenberger [Page 1]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
but may also be used at a national level or even within an
organisation.
Many experts from IETF X.400-Operations Group and RARE Working Group
1 on Message Handling Systems have read drafts of this document and
contributed ideas and solutions. I would especially like to thank
Harald Alvestrand, Erik Huizer, Marko Kaittola, Allan Cargille and
Paul-Andre Pays.
This is the third version of a table format. The first one was in
use within COSINE-MHS for about two years. A second version with
major enhancements was then proposed which has been in use for the
past year. The third version will probably be the last one before it
will be possible to switch to dynamic, directory service based
routing.
2. Terminology
MHS community
One or more MHS domains form an MHS community. Mail exchange
between these MHS domains is defined by the coordination
procedures within this document. Examples of such communities are
the Global Open MHS service GO-MHS and the COSINE-MHS service.
MHS domain
One or more MHS subtrees form an MHS domain. This is a purely
administrative grouping of MHS subtrees. It is helpful, if
someone is responsible for several MHS subtrees, to refer to an
MHS domain instead of listing all the subtrees.
MHS subtree
An MHS subtree consists of the total of the mailboxes addressable
within a subtree of the X.400 OR address space.
Example: O=SWITCH; P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
MHS domain of SWITCH in Switzerland, consisting of all
mailboxes with O=SWITCH; P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH; in the OR
address.
RELAY-MTA
An X.400 MTA serving one or several MHS domains. Note that the
term WEP -Well Known Entry Point- has been used since the early
X.400ies (1987/88) until now, giving the wrong impression of a
Eppenberger [Page 2]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
single entry point (and therefore a single point of failure).
This document proposes to use the term RELAY-MTA, reflecting more
clearly the functionality of the MTA.
COSINE-MHS
The COSINE-MHS community is mainly formed by European X.400
service providers from the academic and research area, each of
which is a member of RARE. The COSINE-MHS community is used in
the annex as an example for the usage of this document in a
multinational environment.
3. Requirements
X.400 MTAs can communicate using different transport and network
protocol stacks. For this document the stacks used in a WAN
environment need to be considered:
Stack 1 Stack 2 Stack 3 Stack 4
Transport Layer 4 TP0 TP4 RFC1006 TP0
Networkservice 1-3 X.25 CLNS TCP/IP CONS
A common protocol stack is not the only requirement to enable
communication between two MTAs. The networks to which the MTAs
belong need to be interconnected. Some well known networks are
listed together with the stacks they use.
Network Stack Abbreviation
Public Switched Packet Data Networks 1 Public-X.25
International X.25 Infrastructure EMPB 1,4 EMPB-X.25
US and European connectionless pilot 2 Int-CLNS
Internet 2,3 Internet
Note that several stacks may be supported over a single network.
However communication between MTAs is only possible if the MTAs share
at least a common stack AND a common network.
Unlike SMTP/TCP/IP systems, there is no directory service available
which would allow an MTA to look up the next MTA to which it should
submit a message. Routing within X.400 will continue to be table
based until a solution using X.500 directory services is available.
Furthermore it is not generally allowed to connect to any MTA even on
the same network without being registered on the destination MTA.
These restrictions require a large coordination effort and carefully
configured and updated systems.
Eppenberger [Page 3]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
4. Outline of the proposal
This proposal offers a solution for describing information about
X.400 message routing within an MHS community in RELAY-MTA and DOMAIN
documents. Basic information on the MHS community is documented in
the corresponding COMMUNITY document. All contact persons and
RELAY-MTA administrators can be found in PERSON documents. A future
X.500 based solution may need extended information to overcome still
unsolved problems like optimal routing or traffic optimization for
messages with multiple recipients. The information collected for the
intermediate solution however is very basic. All established
coordination procedures will help and even speed up the future
introduction of an X.500 based solution.
4.1 The COMMUNITY document
For each MHS community there exists one single COMMUNITY document
containing basic information. First the contact information for the
central coordination point can be found together with the addresses
for the file server where all the documents are stored. It also
lists network names and stacks to be used in the RELAY-MTA and DOMAIN
documents. An MHS community must agree on its own set of mandatory
and optional networks and stacks.
4.2 The RELAY-MTA document
Every MHS domain in the community may designate one or more MTAs as
RELAY-MTAs. These RELAY-MTAs accept incoming connections from the
RELAY-MTAs of the other MHS domains and in return are allowed to send
messages to these RELAY-MTAs. A RELAY-MTA is documented with all the
necessary connection information in the corresponding RELAY-MTA
document.
4.3 The DOMAIN document
An MHS domain has a responsible person who sets up the routing
entries for the domain in the DOMAIN document. The primary RELAY-
MTAs listed in the DOMAIN document as serving this MHS domain must,
TOGETHER, offer at least connectivity to all networks and stacks
listed as mandatory in the COMMUNITY document. Optional RELAY-MTAs
may be added, generally with higher priority, to allow more precise
routing.
An MHS domain may also decide not to operate a RELAY-MTA. It will
then only need agreements with one or more RELAY-MTAs from other MHS
services which will relay for this domain. The domain itself,
however, must either create its own DOMAIN document or document its
MHS subtrees jointly with another MHS domain.
Eppenberger [Page 4]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
The structure of the DOMAIN document is very straightforward. It
starts off with one or more MHS subtrees, each on its own line.
After the domains follows a line indicating the responsible person
for the MHS subtrees mentioned. Finally the responsible RELAY-MTA(s)
are listed with appropriate priorities.
4.4 The PERSON document
All administrators and responsible persons are documented in PERSON
documents. The RELAY-MTA and DOMAIN documents contain just keys
pointing to a PERSON document. If such a person can already be found
in an X.500 directory service, then the key consists of a
Distinguished Name, else the key is just its OR address.
4.5 Coordination
This approach requires an identified coordination point. It is up to
the MHS community to decide on the level of coordination and support
to be provided and on the funding mechanisms for such activities.
Basic information can be found in the COMMUNITY document. The
following list of support activities is considered mandatory for an
operational service:
- New RELAY-MTAs joining the service are tested and support is
given to create the RELAY-MTA document.
- New MHS domains joining the MHS community get assistance to set
up RELAY-MTA(s) and/or find appropriate RELAY-MTA(s) and to
create DOMAIN documents.
- Updated documents are announced to the RELAY-MTA managers and
responsible persons for the DOMAIN documents unless automatic
distribution is used.
- All the RELAY-MTA, DOMAIN and PERSON documents are made
available on a file server together with the COMMUNITY document.
The file server must at least be reachable via email. MHS
communities with a big number of documents may consider
additional access methods like ftp and FTAM.
- Tools should be made available to manage routing tables for the
X.400 software used on the RELAY-MTAs or to fill in and check
the documents. The format of the documents has specifically
been chosen to enable the use of automated tools.
The RELAY-MTA managers must be aware that a large number of RELAY-
MTAs in an MHS community may require significant operational
resources to keep the local routing tables up-to-date and to
Eppenberger [Page 5]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
constantly monitor the correct functioning of the connections. On
the other hand more than one RELAY-MTA with a good connectivity to an
MHS domain improves the overall robustness of the domain and thus the
QOS.
MHS communities may decide on additional mandatory requirements for
the operation of a RELAY-MTA. These may include a hot line, echo
services, exchange of statistics, response time to problem reports,
uptime of the RELAY-MTA, etc. This will ensure a certain quality of
service for the end users.
4.6 Routing
The proposal addresses MHS communities spanning several
organisations. But it may also be used to manage routing within a
single organisation or even a global MHS community.
Two kinds of mail relays are defined, the primary RELAY-MTAs and the
secondary RELAY-MTAs. A primary or secondary RELAY-MTA must allow
incoming connections from all other primary and secondary RELAY-MTAs
with a common stack. Primary RELAY-MTAs must be able to connect to
all other primary RELAY-MTAs which share a common stack. A secondary
RELAY-MTA must connect to at least one primary RELAY-MTA.
Each MHS community must define update procedures for the routing
based on the documentation. Automated update has to be studied
carefully.
An MHS community should also define procedures for new RELAY-MTAs and
MHS domains joining the service. Since the usage of X.400 is growing
rapidly a flexible but well coordinated way of integrating new
members into an MHS community is needed. The proposed documentation
format supports this by allowing primary and secondary RELAY-MTAs.
All RELAY-MTAs accept incoming connections from each other. Sending
messages can be done by using the primary RELAY-MTAs only. This
allows new RELAY-MTAs to join the community as secondary and to get
primary status when traffic flow increases. Secondary RELAY-MTAs may
also require a longer testing period.
5. The documents
The definition is given in BNF-like syntax. The following
conventions are used:
| means choice
\ is used for continuation of a definition over several lines
Eppenberger [Page 6]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
[] means optional
{} means repeated one or more times
() is used to group choices
\" is used for double quotes in a text string
<CR> is a Carriage Return and means that the next section starts
on its own line.
The definition is complete only to a certain level of detail. Below
this level, all expressions are to be replaced with text strings.
Expressions without more detailed definition are marked with single
quotes '. The format and semantics should be clear from the names of
the expressions and the comments given.
Wherever the BNF definition requires a single blank, multiple blanks
may be used to increase the readability. Please note that for some
field values the number of spaces is significant.
Lines exceeding 80 characters should be wrapped at any convenient
blank except at blanks which are significant. The line is continued
with at least one leading blank.
Comments may be placed anywhere in the document but only on separate
lines and without splitting wrapped lines. Such a comment line must
either start with a '#' sign followed by white space and the comment
or consist of a single '#' on a single line.
The documents must follow the case of the strings defined in BNF.
Note that some values, especially connection parameters like TSEL or
MTA password are case dependant too.
The BNF definitions are ordered top-down. See Appendix B for an
alphabetically sorted list.
A set of one COMMUNITY document and several RELAY-MTA, DOMAIN and
PERSON documents belong together. The detailed definitions can be
found in the following chapters.
<X.400 routing coordination document set> ::= \
<COMMUNITY-document> \
{ <RELAY-MTA-document> } \
{ <DOMAIN-document> } \
{ <PERSON-document> }
Eppenberger [Page 7]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
5.1 Common Definitions
<DirectoryName> ::= 'Distinguished Name'
The string representation of a Distinguished Name is
defined in the RFCxxxx. If a Distinguished Name is
used as a key in the documents, then the information
can be fetched from the directory instead of checking
the appropriate document. But as long as not all
managers in the same community have directory access,
the same information must also be present in a
document. Note that Distinguished Names in the context
of the routing documents are just used as key strings
to point to other documents.
<Community-Identifier> ::= "Community: " \
('community name' | <DirectoryName>) <CR>
The 'community name' is a string identifying the MHS
community to be used in the first line of all
documents.
<UniqueRELAY-MTAkey> ::= (([ "P=" 'PRMDname' "; " ] \
["A=" 'ADMDname' "; " ] \
"C=" <Country-Code> "; " \
"MTAname=" 'MTAname')
| <DirectoryName> )
A unique key is needed to identify the RELAY-MTA. In
addition to the MTA name itself, it is proposed to use
OR address attributes of the management domain where
the RELAY-MTA resides. ADMD and PRMD fields are both
optional and may be used to guarantee uniqueness of the
key. The values used are irrelevant. Even non-
printable characters like @ or ! are acceptable. The
result is not an address but a key string. A
Distinguished Name may be used instead.
<UniquePersonKey> ::= (<X.400 address> | <DirectoryName> )
A unique key is necessary to make the links from the
documents where a responsible person or an
administrator is needed, to the PERSON documents. It
is either the OR address of the person or a
Distinguished Name (if the person is already registered
in the directory).
<Country-Code> ::= 'Two Character Country Code ISO-3166'
<X.400 address> ::= 'OR address, ISO 10021-2 Annex F'
It has been used consequently all over the document.
This explains also the syntax of the
Eppenberger [Page 8]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
<UniqueRELAY-MTAkey> and the <MHS-subtree>. Examples:
S=user; O=org ltd.; OU1=sect1; P=org; A=rel400; C=aq;
DDA:RFC-822=we(a)sell.it; P=internet; A= ; C=xx;
G=john; I=w; S=doe; P=org; A=rel400; C=aq;
<EMail> ::= "Address: " <X.400 address> <CR>
<tel-no-list> ::= <tel-number> [{"; " <tel-number>}]
<tel-number> ::= {"+" <int-pref> " " <national number> \
[" x" <extension>]}
This syntax follows the attribute syntax of the X.500
directory based on CCITT E.123.
<int-pref> ::= 'international prefix'
<national number> ::= 'national telephone number'
A national number may be written with spaces and
hyphens to group the figures.
<extension> ::= 'local extension'
<Phone> ::= "Phone: " <tel-no-list> <CR>
One or more phone numbers
<Fax> ::= "Fax: " <tel-no-list> <CR>
One or more FAX numbers
<Mail> ::= "Mail: " 'postal address information' <CR>
The items of the postal address are separated by ' /'
wherever the next item goes onto the next line for a
printed address label. If the document is for an
international community, the address should include the
person's country.
Example:
Mail: SWITCH Head Office / Urs Eppenberger /
Limmatquai 138 / CH-8001 Zurich / Switzerland
results in the following mailing label:
SWITCH Head Office
Urs Eppenberger
Limmatquai 138
CH-8001 Zurich
Switzerland
<Update-info> ::= "Update: FORMAT=V3; DATE=" 'yymmdd' \
"; START=" 'yymmdd' \
["; END=" 'yymmdd'] <CR>
The <Update-info> contains also the format identifier.
Eppenberger [Page 9]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
The date of the last update of a document is given in
the form 'yymmdd'.
A start date must be set. A document can be published
this way before the information in it is valid. (This
is especially useful in absence of automated tools.
RELAY-MTA managers get more time to prepare their
systems.)
An end date is used to set an expiration date for the
document.
<P-address> ::= 'String encoded Presentation Address'
The format of this string follows RFC1278, A string
encoding of Presentation Address and RFC1277, Encoding
Network Addresses to support operation over non-OSI
layers. See chapter 5.2 about the usage of macros in a
Presentation Address.
<Service-type> ::= <Network-name> "/" \
<Network-service> "/" \
<Transport-Protocol>
The service type consists of a string with three parts
concatenated with a "/": Network-name/Network-
service/Transport-Protocol.
<Network-name> ::= 'Name of a network'
The network-name string identifies a network. A well
known key word should be chosen. (No '/' character is
allowed.)
Examples: Public-X.25, Internet, EMPB-X.25, Int-CLNS,
WIN, Janet,
<Network-service> ::= 'Name of a network service'
Examples: X.25, CONS, CLNS, TCP
<Transport-Protocol> ::= 'Name of a transport protocol'
Examples: TP0, TP2, TP4, RFC1006
Since network and stack information forms one string,
it identifies in an easy way a connection possibility
between two RELAY-MTAs. The COMMUNITY document defines
the strings to be used in the RELAY-MTA and DOMAIN
documents. Some examples:
Internet/TCP/RFC1006
Public-X.25/X.25/TP0
RARE-IXI/CONS/TP0
RARE-CLNS/CLNS/TP4
(It is probably important to mention here that this
string has nothing to do with the format of a
Eppenberger [Page 10]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
presentation address as defined by Steve Hardcastle-
Kille in RFC1278. The problem of networks using the
same address structure (X.121 DTEs, 4 Byte Internet
addresses) but not being connected is not addressed in
RFC1278 but solved by using the proposed service
identifier above in addition to the presentation
address. As long as there are network islands, there
is no other way than the addition of an 'island'-
identifier.
<MHS-subtree> ::= ["O=" 'Organization-name' "; "] \
["OU1="'OrganizationalUnit'"; "\
["OU2=" 'OrganizationalUnit' "; " \
["OU3=" 'OrganizationalUnit' "; " \
["OU4=" 'OrganizationalUnit' "; "]]]] \
["P=" 'PRMDname' "; "] \
"A=" 'ADMDname' "; " \
"C=" <Country-Code> ";"
<Operation> ::= "Reachable: " {<time> "-" <time> "; "} \
<Time-zone> <CR>
<time> ::= 'hh:mm'
<Time-zone> ::= ("UTC+" | "UTC-") 'hhmm'
The operation information is needed to know the time
someone is reachable. This information is important
for communities spanning several time zones.
'hhmm' is a four digit value, the first two digits
indicate hours, the second two digits indicate minutes.
Use "UTC+" for time zones east of Greenwich. A simple
formula helps to calculate the current time at the
remote place:
local-time - local-displacement + remote-displacement =
remote-time
18:00 - (UTC + 0100) + (UTC - 0800) = 09:00
The <Time-zone> entry may be followed by a comment line
indicating when Daylight Saving Time is in effect.
This is especially reasonable for MHS communities
spanning continents on the northern and southern
hemisphere.
5.2 The COMMUNITY document
<COMMUNITY-document> ::= <Community-Identifier> \
<Update-info> \
<COMMUNITY-document-body>
The first line of the COMMUNITY document specifies the
Eppenberger [Page 11]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
<Community-Identifier> to be used in the header of all
other documents belonging to the same community. It is
recommended to add a few comment lines to describe the
members of this MHS community.
<COMMUNITY-document-body> ::= <Coordination> \
[{<Macro-definition>}] \
{<Connections>}
<Coordination> ::= <EMail> <Phone> <FAX> \
<Mail> <Operation> <File-server>
Set of contact information for the coordination point
<File-server> ::= <email-server> [{<FTP-server>}] \
[{<FTAM-server>}]
All documents must be available at least to the
managers of the MHS domains and the RELAY-MTAs through
an email server. If FTAM and FTP are also available,
the generation of automated update tools is much
easier.
It is suggested to have a single server. If there is
only one, knowing a single X.400 OR address will allow
you to reach the server. However for FTP and FTAM more
system addresses may be possible depending on the
number of available network connections (or service
types as they are called in this document).
<email-server> ::= "Mail-server: "<X.400 address> <CR>
The email address of the file server.
<FTP-server> ::= "FTP-server: " 'domain name' "; " \
'account-name' ["; " 'password'] <CR>
In addition to the domain name of the server, an
account name and a password is given. In most cases
this will probably be something like "anonymous" and
"guest".
Some servers request the RFC822 address of the user.
This is documented by using the string 'user@domain' as
password entry. The meaning is not to use
'user@domain' literally as password while accessing the
server (even if this would generally work too since the
software often just checks the presence of an @ sign,)
but to use ones own RFC822 email address.
<FTAM-server> ::= "FTAM-server: " <P-address> "; "\
'account-name' ["; " 'password'] \
["; X.500 " <DirectoryName>] <CR>
The account name is often case sensitive. Some FTAM
Eppenberger [Page 12]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
servers offer anonymous access with the account-name
ANON. Documenting an FTAM server with a Distinguished
Name is only allowed if the server is registered in the
directory.
<Macro-definition> ::= "Macro: " 'Macro name' " " \
'Macro value' <CR>
Presentation addresses without the usage of macros are
generally unreadable. RFC1278 suggests a few macros.
All macros which are allowed in a community must be
defined in the COMMUNITY document. It is recommended
to use the proposed macros in RFC1278 and add new ones
if necessary:
Macro: Int-X25(80) TELEX+00728722+X.25(80)+01+
Macro: Janet-X25(80) TELEX+00728722+X.25(80)+02+
Macro: Internet-RFC-1006 TELEX+00728722+RFC-1006+03+
<Connections> ::= {<mandatory-service>} \
{[<optional-service>]}
Note that at least one mandatory service type is
needed.
<mandatory-service> ::= "Mandatory-Service: " \
<Service-type> <CR>
<optional-service> ::= "Optional-Service: " \
<Service-type> <CR>
5.3 The RELAY-MTA document
<RELAY-MTA-document> ::= <Community-Identifier> \
<Update-info> \
<RELAY-MTA-document-Identifier> \
<RELAY-MTA-document-body>
A RELAY-MTA document contains the full description of a
single RELAY-MTA. Only one community is allowed.
Since some of the information is community dependent,
it would not be easily possible to have a single
RELAY-MTA document used in different communities.
<RELAY-MTA-document-Identifier> ::= \
"RELAY-MTA: " <UniqueRELAY-MTAkey> <CR>
<RELAY-MTA-document-body> ::= <Status> <connection-info> \
<contact-info>
<Status> ::= "Status: " ("primary" | "secondary") <CR>
This defines if the RELAY-MTA has 'primary' or
Eppenberger [Page 13]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
'secondary' status. See section 4.3 and 6 for more
information.
<connection-info> ::= <password> <RTS> \
{<called-connection><calling-connection>}\
[<system>] \
[<local-domain>] \
[<echo-server>]
More than one set of connection information may be
present for RELAY-MTAs supporting several networks and
protocol stacks.
<password> ::= "Password: " \
("secret" | "none" | \
"value=\"" 'password' "\"") <CR>
If the keyword none is present, then no password is
sent with the MTAname when this MTA initiates an RTS
connection or responds to an incoming connection.
Password: none
If the keyword secret is present, then the connection
needs a password which is not made publicly available.
(For example, a community might keep a list of the
passwords at the central coordination point. The list
would then be faxed to the RELAY-MTA managers.)
Password: secret
A password must be documented using the
value="password" notation. The double quotes around
the password are needed, consider the case of a single
blank as a password.
Password: value=" "
Password: value="nume-n-ine"
<RTS> ::= <dialog-mode> \
[<checkpoint-size> <window-size>]
<dialog-mode> ::= "RTS-dialog-mode: " \
("TWA" | "MONOLOGUE") <CR>
<checkpoint-size> ::= "RTS-checkpoint-size: " \
'checkpoint size' <CR>
<window-size> ::= "RTS-window-size: " \
'window size' <CR>
<called-connection> ::= "Called-address: " \
<Service-type> "; " \
Eppenberger [Page 14]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
<P-address> "; " <MTS> \
["; " <Service-priority>] <CR>
<MTS> ::= "MTS-T" | "MTS-TP" | "MTS-TP-84"
MTS-T: mts-transfer
MTS-TP: mts-transfer-protocol
MTS-TP-84: mts-transfer-protocol-1984
See ISO 10021-6, Section 3, chapter 11.1 for more
details on this matter. X.400(84) systems only support
mts-transfer-protocol-1984.
<Service-priority> ::= 'Integer 0..99'
The lowest Integer corresponds to the highest priority
as in DNS. It is possible to set different priorities
for each service type. This may be chosen, for
example, to distribute the load amongst different
networks according to their available bandwidth.
<calling-connection> ::= "Calling-address: " \
<Service-type> "; " \
<P-address> <CR>
Since called and calling network addresses may differ
in certain configurations and some X.400 systems do
validation on calling network addresses, it is
important to have this information in the RELAY-MTA
document. (Note: a calling X.121 address might change
if the X.25 switch is reconfigured. This will stop a
RELAY-MTA from connecting to other RELAY-MTAs using
address validation without having changed anything at
the higher layers!)
<system> ::= "System: HW=" 'computer type' "; " \
"OS=" 'operating system' "; " \
"SW=" 'MHS software' <CR>
It is optional to provide HW/SW information.
Experience, however, has shown that a number of
communication problems were more easily identified and
solved with this information present and up-to-date.
<local-domain> ::= "LocalDomain: " <MHS-subtree> <CR>
This is a useful but optional extension to the
documentation.
The <MHS-subtree> is local to the RELAY-MTA. The <MHS-
subtree> attributes might be used together with
S=nosuchuser; to do connectivity and availability
tests.
Eppenberger [Page 15]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
<echo-server> ::= "EchoServer: " <X.400 address> <CR>
Some of the RELAY-MTAs might offer an echo server
functionality. It does make sense to document this in
the RELAY-MTA document for test purpose. This field is
optional.
<contact-info> ::= {"Administrator: " <UniquePersonKey> <CR>}
The contact details for the RELAY-MTA administrator can
be found in the appropriate PERSON document. It is
possible to document a whole team using a distribution
list if this is desired. It is generally better to
document one or more 'real' persons.
5.4 The DOMAIN document
<DOMAIN-document> ::= <Community-Identifier> \
<Update-info> \
<DOMAIN-document-body>
<DOMAIN-document-body>::= {<Domain-entry>} <responsible> \
{<Relay>}
<Domain-entry> ::= "Domain: " <OR-matching> <MHS-subtree> <CR>
Note that it is not allowed to have equal <Domain-
entry> lines in different DOMAIN documents belonging to
the same MHS community. A Domain-entry line can only
appear in one DOMAIN document.
<OR-matching> ::= ( "* " | "= " )
This qualifier defines how the following OR address
attributes should be handled for the routing algorithm.
If a '*' is present, a destination address of a message
is matched by the "Domain:" entry if at least the OR
address attributes in the "Domain:" entry are equal to
the destination address.
If a "=" is present, a destination address of a message
is matched by the "Domain:" entry if there are exactly
the same OR attributes in the destination address as in
the "Domain:" entry. (This restriction works for OU4,
OU3, OU2, OU1, O, P, A and C only.)
Example:
a) Domain: * P=switch; A=arcom; C=ch;
b) Domain: = P=switch; A=arcom; C=ch;
The address S=eppenberger; P=switch; A=arcom; C=ch;
matches both cases, a) and b).
The address S=eppenberger; O=unibe; P=switch; A=arcom;
C=ch; matches only case a).
Eppenberger [Page 16]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
<responsible> ::= {"Administrator: " <UniquePersonKey> <CR>}
This is the person responsible for the listed domains.
His task is to get the agreement of the relaying
RELAY-MTAs and keep the DOMAIN document up-to-date.
This person is the only one authorized to make changes
to this document. Note that multiple administrators
may be listed.
<Relay> ::= "Relay: " \
( 'UniqueRELAY-MTAkey' | \
"Internet-SMTP" ) "; " \
<RELAY-MTA-Priority> <CR>
The priority is used to define the sequence in which
different RELAY-MTAs may be tried in case of failure.
A lower integer corresponds to a higher priority as in
DNS. Priorities 0..49 are used to indicate backup
RELAY-MTAs. Priorities 50..99 are used for RELAY-MTAs
not acting as backup but as relay service provider for
a network service type not supported by the main
RELAY-MTA.
The keyword "Internet-SMTP" is a placeholder for an
RFC1327 gateway connected to Internet. The RELAY-MTA
manager selects a gateway of his choice.
<RELAY-MTA-Priority> ::= <Integer 0..99>
5.5 The PERSON document
<PERSON-document> ::= <Community-Identifier> \
<Update-info> \
<PERSON-document-identifier> \
<PERSON-document-body>
<PERSON-document-identifier> ::= "Key: " <UniquePersonKey> <CR>
<PERSON-document-body>::= <Name> {<EMail>} {<RFC822>} \
<Phone> <Fax> <Mail> <Operation>
<Name> ::= "Name: " 'name of person' <CR>
The name of the person is given. The issue of the
character set problem is not addressed in this
document. Especially international communities should
restrict themselves to IA5 or ASCII.
<RFC822> ::= "RFC822: " <RFC-822-address> <CR>
This is the RFC-822 address of the person. It is often
a big help to know the RFC822 address of someone, for
example if the X.400 system is not reachable. This is
Eppenberger [Page 17]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
also the reason why it is possible to provide multiple
OR and RFC822 addresses. The first one is considered
the primary one.
6. Routing rules
All the users within the MHS community have the right to send
messages to each other. The general agreement is that the RELAY-MTA
infrastructure is used according to the following routing rules.
More direct connections based on bilateral agreements are fully
accepted.
A primary or secondary RELAY-MTA must allow incoming connections from
all other primary and secondary RELAY-MTAs with a common stack.
Primary RELAY-MTAs must be able to connect to all other primary
RELAY-MTAs which share a common stack. A secondary RELAY-MTA must
connect to at least one primary RELAY-MTA.
A message arriving at a RELAY-MTA must either be sent to the next
RELAY-MTA based on the DOMAIN documents of the MHS community or it is
sent to an MTA closer to the destination based on local routing
decisions. The following algorithm must be used when forwarding a
message to the next RELAY-MTA:
1) Select the relevant DOMAIN document by searching for a match of
the Recipient address in the message with the entries in the
document.
If your own RELAY-MTA appears in this list, this indicates one of
the following:
- You offered relay services for another RELAY-MTA with higher
priority. Continue with step 2 to decide on the next RELAY-MTA.
- Your RELAY-MTA is the final destination according the DOMAIN
document of your community. You need to forward the message to
the final destination according local routing information.
2) From the list of RELAY-MTAs select those that have at least one
common network service type with your own RELAY-MTA.
3) Now delete all secondary RELAY-MTAs from the list where no
direct connection is desired. For remaining RELAY-MTAs in the
list no difference is made anymore between primary and secondary
status.
4) Select from this reduced set of RELAY-MTAs the one with the
highest RELAY-MTA-priority. If there is more than one RELAY-MTA
Eppenberger [Page 18]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
having the same priority, then select a RELAY-MTA of your choice.
If your own RELAY-MTA appears in that list, then you are not
allowed to send to a RELAY-MTA with lower or equal priority.
5) If there are no service-priorities set in the corresponding
RELAY-MTA document indicating which service type to use, you are
free to choose the service type for connecting to the RELAY-MTA.
However, if there are specific priorities set then select the
service type with the highest priority.
6) If the connection fails then try other service types in the
sequence of descending priority.
7) If no connection works for the selected RELAY-MTA, then check
in the list for the one with the same priority, if possible, or
else select one with the next lower priority. If there is another
RELAY-MTA with a RELAY-MTA-priority between 0..49, then select it
and proceed at step 5. Without another RELAY-MTA to try the
currently selected RELAY-MTA will be retried.
6.1 How to use RELAY-MTA-priorities
An example helps to explain the usage of RELAY-MTA-priorities.
Internet/TCP/RFC1006 and Public-X.25/X.25/TP0 are mandatory service
types in the community REMOTEmail. The MHS domain P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM;
C=CH; operates MTA-B, only connected to public X.25. A second
RELAY-MTA which is connected to both, Internet and public X.25 is
needed to offer relay services. A connection using Internet is
considered cheap in this example. Both service types are available
at MTA-A. Since MTA-B is the only RELAY-MTA responsible for relaying
messages to P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH; to the final destination it must
have the highest priority.
Community: REMOTEmail
Domain: * P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-B; 20
RELAY-MTA: P=MTA-C; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-C; 80
__________________________
+-------+ X.25 +-------+ ( )
| MTA-A +-------------+ MTA-B +-( P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH; )
+-------+ +-------+ (__________________________)
\ /
TCP/IP \ /X.25
+-------+
| MTA-C |
+-------+
Eppenberger [Page 19]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
If MTA-A needs to relay a message for P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH; then
the rules of chapter 6 are evaluated:
1. MTA-B and MTA-C are possible destinations
2. MTA-B and MTA-C are reachable from MTA-A
3. MTA-B is a primary RELAY-MTA (not relevant in this example)
4. MTA-B has the highest priority.
5. MTA-B doesn't have specific service type lines documented.
MTA-A chooses public X.25, since it is the only possibility
to connect to MTA-B.
6. No other service types are available if the connection
fails.
7. MTA-C has a priority of 80, it is not a backup RELAY-MTA.
MTA-A must spool the message and try to connect directly to
MTA-B.
The organisation running MTA-A could save money by sending messages
for the MHS domain P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH; via MTA-C. Since the
connection between MTA-C and the destination MTA-B is also expensive,
the organisation running MTA-C would have to pay for external relay
traffic. Setting a lower priority for MTA-C forces the other RELAY-
MTAs with public X.25 connectivity to take their share of the cost.
Note that forcing other RELAY-MTAs to use a specific stack should be
avoided wherever possible by offering RELAY-MTAs with equal priority
for all mandatory network services. This can be an important
financial issue for MHS communities spanning several organisations,
it is not relevant in general for an MHS community within a single
organisation.
6.2 How to use RELAY-MTA-priorities for backup RELAY-MTAS
Two RELAY-MTAs offer real backup connectivity for the MHS domain
P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;. It is therefore possible to set RELAY-MTA
priorities in the range of 0..49 for both RELAY-MTAs. MTA-B will be
the preferred one since it has the higher priority. If the
connection to MTA-B fails, a sending RELAY-MTA may immediately try to
connect to MTA-C.
Community: REMOTEmail
Domain: * P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-B; 10
Eppenberger [Page 20]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-C; 30
__________________________
+-------+ +-------+ ( )
| MTA-A +-------------+ MTA-B +-( P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH; )
+-------+ +-------+ (__________________________)
\ /
\ +-------+
-----------+ MTA-C |
+-------+
6.3 Load Sharing
It is possible to set equal priorities to do some sort of load
sharing. However, most implementations are not able to do random
selection of RELAY-MTAs with equal priorities but have a fixed
configuration. If load sharing is really needed then it is suggested
to split up the MHS domain into several MHS subtrees and document
them separately with a set of RELAY-MTAs with different priorities.
An example is provided for illustration of the first possibility with
equal RELAY-MTA-priorities:
Community: REMOTEmail
Domain: * P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-B; 10
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-C; 10
_ __________________________
) +-------+ ( )
)--+ MTA-B +--( P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH; )
) +-------+ (__________________________)
) /
) +-------+/
)--+ MTA-C |
_) +-------+
And here is an example where the MHS domain
C=CH;ADMD=ARCOM;PRMD=REMOTE;O=Big-Org is documented with its own
DOMAIN document: Note that in this example both RELAY-MTAs serve
as backup RELAY-MTAs.
Community: REMOTEmail
Domain: * P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-B; 10
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-C; 30
Community: REMOTEmail
Domain: * O=Big-Org; P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Eppenberger [Page 21]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-C; 10
RELAY-MTA: P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH;MTAname=MTA-B; 30
_ __________________________
) +-------+ ( )
)--+ MTA-B +--( P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH; )
) +-------+ (__________________________)
) \/
) /\ _____________________________________
) +-------+ ( )
)--+ MTA-C |--( O=Big-Org; P=REMOTE; A=ARCOM; C=CH; )
_) +-------+ (_____________________________________)
7. Open issues
Currently there are about 35 RELAY-MTAs within the COSINE-MHS
service. A rough guess is that a network with about 60 RELAY-MTAs is
still manageable provided there are automated tools for MTA
configuration. If there are more MTAs applying for RELAY-MTA status
in an MHS community, then either an X.500 based solution should be
ready or a core set of about 30 well operated super-RELAY-MTAs should
form a backbone, documented within a specific MHS community.
Since the RELAY-MTA document contains information about the supported
X.400 version (84 or 88), it is possible for an X.400(88) system to
select with higher priority an (88)RELAY-MTA. The rules in chapter 6
could be modified to select X.400(88) systems first if the sending
RELAY-MTA is an (88) system itself. The issue of how to establish an
X.400(88) RELAY-MTA infrastructure within an MHS community is for
further study.
Eppenberger [Page 22]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
Appendix A: Document examples for the COSINE-MHS community
Instead of creating artificial documents to show an example document
set, this appendix contains extracts from a real operational X.400
service. The research and development community in Europe has used
X.400 for several years. This proposal was initially written to
address this community only and solve the urgent routing and
coordination problems. Contributions from different experts have
made it more flexible and therefore hopefully useful for other MHS
communities.
Appendix A1: The COMMUNITY document
Community: COSINE-MHS
# The COSINE-MHS service is a MHS community formed by the European
# academic and research networks with additional contacts in all
# other continents.
#
# The coordination is done by the COSINE-MHS project team.
#
Update: FORMAT=V3; DATE=921218; START=930201
#
Address: S=Project-Team; O=SWITCH; P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
#
Phone: +41 1-262-31-43
Fax: +41 1-261-81-88
#
Mail: SWITCH Head Office /
MHS Coordination Service /
Limmatquai 138 /
CH-8001 Zurich /
Switzerland
#
Reachable: 09:00-12:00; 14:00-17:30; UTC+1
#
Mail-server: S=mhs-server; O=switch; OU1=nic;
P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
FTP-server: nic.switch.ch; cosine; user@domain
#
Macro: Int-X25(80) TELEX+00728722+X.25(80)+01+
Macro: Internet-RFC-1006 TELEX+00728722+RFC-1006+03+
Macro: IXI TELEX+00728722+X.25(80)+06+
#
Mandatory-Service: Public-X.25/X.25/TP0
# The public X.25 network. X.25 is supported in most X.400
# applications and mandatory in X.400 anyhow.
#
Mandatory-Service: Internet/TCP/RFC1006
Eppenberger [Page 23]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
# The Internet, standing for the global TCP/IP network of the
# research and development community
# RFC1006 is considered a solution to ease migration to OSI. It will
# be replaced by TP4/CLNS as soon as a reliable service is
# available.
#
Optional-Service: Int-CLNS/CLNS/TP4
# The RARE Connectionless pilot service. Current participants are
# NORDUnet, SURFnet, CERN, NSFnet and SWITCH.
#
Optional-Service: EMPB-X.25/X.25/TP0
# The International X.25 Infrastructure covering most countries in
# Europe. The absence of volume tariffs make it a preferred choice.
Appendix A2: Example of a RELAY-MTA document
Community: COSINE-MHS
#
Update: FORMAT=V3; DATE=921218; START=930201
#
RELAY-MTA: P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH; MTAname=chx400.switch.ch
#
Status: primary
#
Password: none
RTS-dialog-mode: MONOLOGUE
#
Called-address: Public-X.25/X.25/TP0;
"591"/Int-X25(80)=22847971014520+CUDF+03010100;
MTS-TP-84
Calling-address: Public-X.25/X.25/TP0;
Int-X25(80)=22847971014520;
#
Called-address: Internet/TCP/RFC1006;
"591"/Internet-RFC-1006=chx400.switch.ch;
MTS-TP-84
Calling-address: Internet/TCP/RFC1006;
Internet-RFC-1006=chx400.switch.ch
#
Called-address: EMPB-X.25/X.25/TP0;
"591"/IXI=20432840100520+CUDF+03010100;
MTS-TP-84
Calling-address: EMPB-X.25/X.25/TP0;
IXI=20432840100520;
#
Calling-address: Int-CLNS/CLNS/TP4;
"591"/NS+39756F11111111010000014560AA00040005E100;
MTS-TP-84
Eppenberger [Page 24]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
Called-address: DCC+756+x11111111010000014560AA00040005E100
#
# For X.400(88) over CLNS
#
Calling-address: Int-CLNS/CLNS/TP4;
"592"/NS+39756F11111111010000014560AA00040005E100;
MTS-T
Called-address: DCC+756+x11111111010000014560AA00040005E100
#
System: HW=SUN 4/690MP; OS=SunOS 4.1.1; SW=PP-6.0
#
LocalDomain: O=switch; OU1=chx400; P=switch; A=arcom; C=ch;
#
EchoServer: S=echo; O=switch; OU1=chx400; P=switch; A=arcom; C=ch;
#
Administrator: CN=Felix Kugler, O=SWITCH, C=CH
Administrator: CN=Christoph Graf, O=SWITCH, C=CH
Appendix A3: Example of a DOMAIN document
Community: COSINE-MHS
#
Update: FORMAT=V3; DATE=921218; START=930201
##
Domain: * P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=SANDOZ; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=ABB; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=UBS; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=ISREC; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=ALCATEL; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=ITU; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=OSILABMAIL; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=WHO; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=CERN; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Domain: * P=CERBERUS; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
#
Administrator: CN=Christoph Graf, O=SWITCH, C=CH
Administrator: S=postmaster; O=SWITCH; P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
#
RELAY-MTA: P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH; MTAname=chx400.switch.ch; 0
#
RELAY-MTA: P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH; MTAname=vms.switch; 10
Appendix A4: Example of a PERSON document
Community: COSINE-MHS
#
Update: FORMAT=V3; DATE=921218; START=930201
Eppenberger [Page 25]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
#
Key: CN=Christoph Graf, O=SWITCH, C=CH
#
Name: Christoph Graf
#
Address: S=Graf; O=SWITCH; P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
RFC822: Graf@switch.ch
#
Phone: +41 1 2565454
Fax: +41 1 2618133
#
Mail: SWITCH Head Office /
Christoph Graf /
Limmatquai 138 /
CH-8001 Zurich /
Switzerland
#
Reachable: 09:00-12:00; 14:00-17:30; UTC+0100
Eppenberger [Page 26]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
Appendix B: BNF Definitions
<called-connection> ::= "Called-address: " \
<Service-type> "; " \
<P-address> "; " <MTS> \
["; " <Service-priority>] <CR>
<calling-connection> ::= "Calling-address: " \
<Service-type> "; " \
<P-address> <CR>
<checkpoint-size> ::= "RTS-checkpoint-size: " \
'checkpoint size' <CR>
<COMMUNITY-document> ::= <Community-Identifier> \
<Update-info> \
<COMMUNITY-document-body>
<COMMUNITY-document-body> ::= <Coordination> \
[{<Macro-definition>}] \
{<Connections>}
<Community-Identifier> ::= "Community: " \
('community name' | <DirectoryName>) <CR>
<connection-info> ::= <password> <RTS> \
{<called-connection><calling-connection>}\
[<system>] \
[<local-domain>] \
[<echo-server>]
<Connections> ::= {<mandatory-service>} \
{[<optional-service>]}
<contact-info> ::= {"Administrator: " <UniquePersonKey> <CR>}
<Coordination> ::= <EMail> <Phone> <FAX> \
<Mail> <Operation> <File-server>
<Country-Code> ::= 'Two Character Country Code ISO-3166'
<dialog-mode> ::= "RTS-dialog-mode: " \
("TWA" | "MONOLOGUE") <CR>
<DirectoryName> ::= 'Distinguished Name'
<DOMAIN-document> ::= <Community-Identifier> \
<Update-info> \
Eppenberger [Page 27]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
<DOMAIN-document-body>
<DOMAIN-document-body>::= {<Domain-entry>} <responsible> \
{<Relay>}
<Domain-entry> ::= "Domain: " <OR-matching> <MHS-subtree> <CR>
<echo-server> ::= "EchoServer: " <X.400 address> <CR>
<EMail> ::= "Address: " <X.400 address> <CR>
<email-server> ::= "Mail-server: "<X.400 address> <CR>
<extension> ::= 'local extension'
<Fax> ::= "Fax: " <tel-no-list> <CR>
<File-server> ::= <email-server> [{<FTP-server>}] \
[{<FTAM-server>]}
<FTAM-server> ::= "FTAM-server: " <P-address> "; "\
'account-name' ["; " 'password'] \
["; X.500 " <DirectoryName>] <CR>
<FTP-server> ::= "FTP-server: " 'domain name' "; " \
'account-name' ["; " 'password'] <CR>
<int-pref> ::= 'international prefix'
<local-domain> ::= "LocalDomain: " <MHS-subtree> <CR>
<Macro-definition> ::= "Macro: " 'Macro name' " " \
'Macro value' <CR>
<Mail> ::= "Mail: " 'postal address information' <CR>
<mandatory-service> ::= "Mandatory-Service: " \
<Service-type> <CR>
<MHS-subtree> ::= ["O=" 'Organization-name' "; "] \
["OU1="'OrganizationalUnit'"; "\
["OU2=" 'OrganizationalUnit' "; " \
["OU3=" 'OrganizationalUnit' "; " \
["OU4=" 'OrganizationalUnit' "; "]]]] \
["P=" 'PRMDname' "; "] \
"A=" 'ADMDname' "; " \
"C=" <Country-Code> ";"
Eppenberger [Page 28]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
<MTS> ::= "MTS-T" | "MTS-TP" | "MTS-TP-84"
<Name> ::= "Name: " 'name of person' <CR>
<national number> ::= 'national telephone number'
<Network-name> ::= 'Name of a network'
<Network-service> ::= 'Name of a network service'
<Operation> ::= "Reachable: " {<time> "-" <time> "; "} \
<Time-zone> <CR>
<optional-service> ::= "Optional-Service: " \
<Service-type> <CR>
<OR-matching> ::= ( "* " | "= " )
<P-address> ::= 'String encoded Presentation Address'
<password> ::= "Password: " \
("secret" | "none" | \
"value=\"" 'password' "\"") <CR>
<PERSON-document> ::= <Community-Identifier> \
<Update-info> \
<PERSON-document-identifier> \
<PERSON-document-body>
<PERSON-document-identifier> ::= "Key: " <UniquePersonKey> <CR>
<PERSON-document-body>::= <Name> {<EMail>} {<RFC822>} \
<Phone> ::= "Phone: " <tel-no-list> <CR>
<Relay> ::= "Relay: " \
'UniqueRELAY-MTAkey' "; " \
<RELAY-MTA-Priority> <CR>
<RELAY-MTA-document> ::= <Community-Identifier> \
<Update-info> \
<RELAY-MTA-document-Identifier> \
<RELAY-MTA-document-body>
<RELAY-MTA-document-body> ::= <Status> <connection-info> \
<contact-info>
<RELAY-MTA-document-Identifier> ::= \
Eppenberger [Page 29]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
"RELAY-MTA: " <UniqueRELAY-MTAkey> <CR>
<RELAY-MTA-Priority> ::= <Integer 0..99>
<responsible> ::= {"Administrator: " <UniquePersonKey> <CR>}
<RFC822> ::= "RFC822: " <RFC-822-address> <CR>
<RTS> ::= <dialog-mode> \
[<checkpoint-size> <window-size>]
<Service-priority> ::= 'Integer 0..99'
<Service-type> ::= <Network-name> "/" \
<Network-service> "/" \
<Transport-Protocol>
<Status> ::= "Status: " ("primary" | "secondary") <CR>
<system> ::= "System: HW=" 'computer type' "; " \
"OS=" 'operating system' "; " \
"SW=" 'MHS software' <CR>
<tel-no-list> ::= <tel-number> [{"; " <tel-number>}]
<tel-number> ::= {"+" <int-pref> " " <national number> \
[" x" <extension>]}
<time> ::= 'hh:mm'
<Time-zone> ::= ("UTC+" | "UTC-") 'hhmm'
<Transport-Protocol> ::= 'Name of a transport protocol'
<UniquePersonKey> ::= (<X.400 address> | <DirectoryName> )
<UniqueRELAY-MTAkey> ::= (([ "P=" 'PRMDname' "; " ] \
["A=" 'ADMDname' "; " ] \
"C=" <Country-Code> "; " \
"MTAname=" 'MTAname')
| <DirectoryName> )
<Update-info> ::= "Update: FORMAT=V3; DATE=" 'yymmdd' \
"; START=" 'yymmdd' \
["; END=" 'yymmdd'] <CR>
<window-size> ::= "RTS-window-size: " \
'window size' <CR>
Eppenberger [Page 30]
RFC 1465 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services May 1993
<X.400 address> ::= 'OR address, ISO 10021-2 Annex F'
<X.400 routing coordination document set> ::= \
<COMMUNITY-document> \
{ <RELAY-MTA-document> } \
{ <DOMAIN-document> } \
{ <PERSON-document> }
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Author's Address
Urs Eppenberger
SWITCH Head Office
Limmatquai 138
CH-8001 Zurich
Switzerland
Phone: +41 1 261 8112
Fax: +41 1 261 8133
EMail: Eppenberger@switch.ch
S=Eppenberger; O=SWITCH; P=SWITCH; A=ARCOM; C=CH;
Comments to the document may also be sent to the distribution list
wg-msg@rare.nl of the RARE Working Group on Mail and Messaging.
Eppenberger [Page 31]