NIST Special Publication 500-217

Computer

Systems

Technology

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Technology Administration

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

NAT-L INST. OF STAND & TECH R.I.C.

IGOSS-Industry/Government

Open Systems Specification

Gerard Mulvenna, Editor

"'^ NIST

PUBLICATIONS

NIST RESEARCH INFORMATION

MAR 2 6 1996

CENTER

QC

100

.U57

iO. 500-217

994
7he National Institute of Standards and Technology was established in 1988 by Congress to "assist industry in the development of technology . . . needed to improve product quality, to modernize

manufacturing processes, to ensure product reliability . . . and to facilitate rapid commercialization ... of

products based on new scientific discoveries."

NIST, originally founded as the National Bureau of Standards in 1901, works to strengthen U.S.

industry's competitiveness; advance science and engineering; and improve public health, safety, and the

environment. One of the agency's basic functions is to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the national

standards of measurement, and provide the means and methods for comparing standards used in science,

engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and education with the standards adopted or recognized

by the Federal Government.

As an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration, NIST conducts basic

and applied research in the physical sciences and engineering and performs related services. The Institute does generic and precompetitive work on new and advanced technologies. NIST's research facilities are located at Gaithersburg, MD 20899, and at Boulder, CO 80303. Major technical operating units and their

principal activities are listed below. For more information contact the Public Inquiries Desk, 301-975-3058.

Technology Services

• Manufacturing Technology Centers Program

• Standards Services

• Technology Commercialization

• Measurement Services

• Technology Evaluation and Assessment

• Information Services

Electronics and Electrical Engineering

Laboratory

• Microelectronics

• Law Enforcement Standards

• Electricity

• Semiconductor Electronics

• Electromagnetic Fields'

• Electromagnetic Technology'

Chemical Science and Technology

Laboratory

• Biotechnology

• Chemical Engineering'

• Chemical Kinetics and Thermodynamics

• Inorganic Analytical Research

• Organic Analytical Research

• Process Measurements

• Surface and Microanalysis Science

• Thermophysics^

Physics Laboratory

• Electron and Optical Physics

• Atomic Physics

• Molecular Physics

• Radiometric Physics

• Quantum Metrology

• Ionizing Radiation

• Time and Frequency'

• Quantum Physics'

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

• Precision Engineering

• Automated Production Technology

• Robot Systems

• Factory Automation

• Fabrication Technology

Materials Science and Engineering

Laboratory

• Intelligent Processing of Materials

• Ceramics

• Materials Reliability'

• Polymers

• Metallurgy

• Reactor Radiation

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

• Structures

• Building Materials

• Building Environment

• Fire Science and Engineering

• Fire Measurement and Research

Computer Systems Laboratory

• Information Systems Engineering

• Systems and Software Technology

• Computer Security

• Systems and Network Architecture

• Advanced Systems

Computing and Applied Mathematics

Laboratory

• Applied and Computational Mathematics^

• Statistical Engineering^

• Scientific Computing Environments^

• Computer Services^

• Computer Systems and Communications^

• Information Systems

'At Boulder, CO 80303. ^Some elements at Boulder, CO 80303.
NIST Special Publication 500-217

IGOSS-Industry/Government

Open Systems Specification

Gerard Mulvenna, Editor

Computer Systems Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

May 1994

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

Technology Administration

Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arati Prabhakar, Director
Reports on Computer Systems Technology

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has a unique responsibility for computer

systems technology within the Federal government. NIST's Computer Systems Laboratory (CSL) develops standards and guidelines, provides technical assistance, and conducts research for computers and

related telecommunications systems to achieve more effective utilization of Federal information technology resources. CSL's responsibilities include development of technical, management, physical, and administrative standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive unclassified

information processed in Federal computers. CSL assists agencies in developing security plans and In improving computer security awareness training. This Special Publication 500 series reports CSL re- search and guidelines to Federal agencies as well as to organizations in industry, government, and

academia.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 500-217

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pubi. 500-217, 129 pages (May 1994)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 PURPOSE 2

1.3 EVOLUTION OF THE IGOSS 2

1.4 SCOPE 3

1.5 RELATIONSHIP OF THE IGOSS TO EXISTING PROFILE DOCUMENTS 3

1.6 APPLICABILITY 4

1.7 IGOSS FUNCTIONALITY 4

1.8 SOURCES OF PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS 4

1.8.1 Primary Source 4

1.8.1.1 Relationship of the IGOSS Protocol Specifications to Workshop

Agreements 4

1.8.1.2 Relationship of the IGOSS Protocol Specifications to

International Standardized Profiles 5

1 .8.2 Secondary Sources 5

1 .8.3 Tertiary Sources 6

1.9 IGOSS ERRATA 6

2. DESCRIPTIONS OF ARCHITECTURE AND PROTOCOLS 7

2.1 SPECIFICATION ARCHITECTURE 7

2.2 NETWORKING ARCHITECTURE 10

2.3 PROTOCOL DESCRIPTIONS 11

3. PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS 13

3.1 SUBPROFILE SPECIFICATIONS 13

3.1.1 Subprofile Selection 13

3.1.2 Service Interface Requirements 14

3.2 APPLICATION SUBPROFILES 14

3.2.1 Common Application Service Elements 15

3.2.1.2 Remote Operations Service Element 15

3.2.1.3 Reliable Transfer Service Element 15

3.2.1.4 Commitment, Concurrency and Recovery Service Element 15

3.2.1.5 Transaction Processing User Application Service Element 15

3.2.2 File Transfer, Access and Management 16

3.2.2.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer

Subprofiles 17

3.2.3 Message Handling Systems 17

3.2.3.1 Interpersonal Messaging User Agent 20

3.2.3.2 Electronic Data Interchange User Agent 20

3.2.3.3 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer

Subprofiles 21

3.2.4 Virtual Terminal - Basic Class 21

3.2.4.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer

Subprofiles 22

3.2.5 Transaction Processing 22

3.2.5.1 Definitions 22

3.2.5.2. OSI TP Procurement Consideration 23

3.2.6 Remote Database Access 25

iii
3.2.6.1. Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer

Subprofiles 26

3.2.7 Directory Services 26

3.2.7.1 Directory User Agent Procurement Categories 27

3.2.7.2 Directory System Agent Procurement Categories 30

3.2.7.3 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer

Subprofiles 32

3.2.8 Manufacturing Message Specification 32

3.2.8.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer

Subprofiles 37

3.2.9 Network Management 38

3.2.9.1 Management Communications 38

3.2.9.2 Management Information 38

3.2.9.3 System Management Functions and Services 39

3.2.9.4 Management Security 40

3.2.9.5 Relationship of IGOSS Network Management to Other Efforts 41 3.2.10 X-Windows 41

3.2.10.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Upper Layer

Subprofiles 42

3.2.11 information Retrieval 42

3.2.11.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Upper Layer

Subprofiles 43

3.2.12 OSI Upper Layer Connectionless Service 44

3.2.12.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Upper Layer

Subprofiles 45

3.2.13 Minimal OSI (mOSI) Upper Layers Service 45

. 3.3 OSI ACCOMMODATION FOR EXCHANGE FORMATS 45

3.4 LOWER LAYER SUBPROFILES 47

3.4.1 Transport Services 48

3.4.2 Network Services 48

3.4.3 Subnetwork Services 48

3.4.4 Support of OSI Management Information 49

3.4.5 COTS-CLNS Subprofile 49

3.4.5.1 Provision of the Connection-Oriented Transport Service 50

3.4.5.2 Provision of the Connectionless Mode Network Service 51

3.4.6 CLNS-Relay (X) Subprofile 53

3.4.6.1 Provision of the Connectionless Mode Network Service 53

3.4.7 CLTS-CLNS Subprofile 55

3.4.7.1 Provision of the Connectionless Mode Transport Service 56

3.4.7.2 Provision of the Connectionless Mode Network Service 57

3.4.8 COTS(X)-CONS Subprofile 57

3.4.8.1 Provision of the Connection-Oriented Transport Service 59

3.4.8.2 Provision of the Connection-Oriented Network Service 59

3.4.9 Subnetwork Subprofiles 60

3.4.9.1 LAN(X,Y) Subprofiles 60

3.4.9.2 X25-WAN Subprofile 63

3.4.9.3 ISDN Subprofiles 65

3.4.9.4 PVC-Frame-Relay 66

3.4.9.5 Point-to-Point(X) Subprofile 67

IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF OSI OBJECTS 69

4.1 NETWORK LAYER ADDRESSES 69

iv
4.1.1 Fundamentals of NSAP Address Structure and Administration 69

4.1.2 Technical Requirements on NSAP Address Allocation 69

4.1.3 Common IGOSS NSAP Address Authorities and DSP Formats 70

4.2 MHS ORIGINATOR/RECIPIENT NAMES 71

4.3 OTHER OSI OBJECTS 73

4.4 REGISTRATION OF OSI OBJECTS 73

5. PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS 75

5.1 USER'S GUIDE 75

5.2 EVALUATION GUIDELINES 75

5.3 TESTING 75

5.4 CHARACTER SET SUPPORT 76

5.5 VENDOR ENHANCEMENTS 76

REFERENCES 77

FOREWORD TO THE APPENDICES 91

APPENDIX 1. SECURITY 92

APPENDIX 2. SYSTEM AND NETWORK ARCHITECTURE 95

APPENDIX 3. UPPER LAYERS 97

APPENDIX 4. LOWER LAYERS 105

APPENDIX 5. APPLICATION PROGRAM INTERFACES 107

APPENDIX 6. DIRECTORY SERVICES CONFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS 109

APPENDIX 7. ACRONYMS 117

V
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.2.2. FTAM Application Subprofiie . 16

Figure 3.2.3(a). MHS 1988 Configuration Alternatives 18

Figure 3.2.3(b). MHS Application Subprofiie 20

Figure 3.2.4. VT Application Subprofiie 22

Figure 3.2.5.2.1. OSI TP Application Subprofiie . . 24

Figure 3.2.6. RDA Basic Application Context Application Subprofiie 26

Figure 3.2.7. Directory Service Application Subprofiie 27

Figure 3.2.8. MMS Application Subprofiie 37

Figure 3.2.9.2. Network Management Application Subprofiie 38

Figure 3.2.10. X-Windows Application Subprofiie 42

Figure 3.2.11. IR Application Subprofiie 43

Figure 3.2.12. Connectionless Upper Layers Subprofiie 44

Figure 3.4.5. COTS-CLNS Subprofiie 50

Figure 3.4.6. CLNS-Relay (X) Subprofiie 53

Figure 3.4.7. CLTS-CLNS Subprofiie 56

Figure 3.4.8. COTS(X)-CONS Subprofiie 58

Figure 3.4.9.1. LAN Subnet Subprofiie 61

Figure 3.4.9.4. PVC-Frame Relay Subprofiie 67

Figure 3.4.9.5. PtPt Subprofiie 68

Figure 4.1.1. NSAP Address Structure 69

Figure 4.1.3. Common DSP Structure 70

Figure 4.4. Registration Authority Hierarchy 74

Figure A.3.3. RDA TP Application Context Application Subprofiie 97

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Directory DAP Abstract Operations 28

Table 3.2 DBA Categories 31 Table 3.3 MMS Implementation Class/Service Mapping 34

Table 3.4 MMS Implementation Class/Parameter 37

Table 4.1 IGOSS NSAP Addressing Schemes 70

Table 4.2 Required O/R Address Attributes 72

vii
GLOSSARY

The terms defined below are used frequently throughout this profile. They are defined here to aid the

non-specialist.

Protocol

In the Open Systems Interconnection reference model, the communication functions are partitioned into seven layers. Each layer, N provides a service to the layer above, N + 1 , by carrying on a conversation

with layer N on another processor. The rules and conventions of that N-layer conversation are called a

protocol.

End System

An end system (ES) contains the application processes that are the ultimate sources and destinations of user oriented message flows. The functions of an end system can be distributed among more than one

processor/computer.

Intermediate System

An intermediate system (IS) interconnects two or more subnetworks. For example, it might connect a

local area network with a wide area network. It performs routing and relaying of traffic. A processor can

implement the functions of both an end system and an intermediate system.

A system implementing all seven layers of protocol may provide service directly to users (acting as an

end system), and it may connect subnetworks (acting as an intermediate system). When it performs the

functions of an intermediate system, only the lower three layers of protocol are exercised.

Open System

An open system is a system capable of communicating with other open systems by virtue of

implementing common international standard protocols. End systems and intermediate systems are open systems. However, an open system may not be accessible by all other open systems. This

isolation may be provided by physical separation or by technical capabilities based upon computer and

communications security.

Profile

A set of one or more base standards, and, where applicable, the identification of chosen classes,

subsets, options and parameters of those base standards, necessary for accomplishing a particular

function.

Subprofile

A profile subset whose boundaries have been defined on the basis of a functional separation for the

purposes of convenient specification, definition of conformance, and flexibility of procurement definition. Subprofiles serve as building blocks that may be selected and combined to define a particular

procurement.

viii
IGOSS Compliance

IGOSS defines a common collection of protocol specifications (i.e., subprofiles) and minimal selection

requirements that are agreed upon by the participating IGOSS organization. Each organization will develop their own profile document (e.g., US GOSIP Version 3) that specifies detailed statements of IGOSS applicability along with any additional technical requirements (e.g., additional protocol

refinements and/or subprofile selection constraints). Thus IGOSS compliance is not necessarily

synonymous with compliance to individual organization profiles.

None the less, few organization-specific deviations are expected. The following definitions address the

notions of IGOSS compliance.

IGOSS Compliant Subprofile

An implementation of a set of one or more OSI protocols that conform to an IGOSS subprofile

specification.

IGOSS Compliant Svstem

An OSI end or intermediate system that meets the IGOSS requirements for subprofile selection.

ix

INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT OPEN SYSTEMS SPECIFICATION

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Industry/Government Open Systems Specification (IGOSS) is jointly authored by the U.S. Government,

the Canadian govemment, Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) User Group, the Technical and Office

Protocol (TOP) User Group, and the electric power industry. Each of these five major user organizations

have previously issued their own procurement profiles to coordinate the acquisition and operation of computer networking products and services based on the international Open Systems Interconnection (OS I) standards.

The MAP specification [MISC 1] was first published by the General Motors Corporation in 1984. Other

companies joined the effort to promote the use of the OSI protocols by the factory automation community.

Under the leadership of General Motors, the MAP Users Group was formed which supported General

Motors in the work of producing subsequent versions of the MAP specification. Around the same time, the

office and engineering community recognized the importance of developing an OSI procurement

specification which would accelerate the availablility of off-the-shelf computer networking products that would meet the needs of users. The first version of the TOP specification [MISC 2] was published in 1 985

by the Boeing Corporation and, under Boeing's leadership, the TOP Users Group was formed in the latter part of that year. The MAP and TOP communities joined forces to coordinate their activities under common

North American and World Federation of MAP/TOP Users Groups. The MAP and TOP specifications are now maintained by the World Federation of MAP/TOP Users Groups. The Corporation for Open Systems

(COS) distributes both the MAP and TOP documents. The MAP and TOP organizations also jointly

organized the Enterprise Networking Event in 1988 at which 52 vendors demonstrated that OSI products can be used to solve real business problems.

In late 1986 the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST), initiated development of the Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile (GOSIP). A Federal Inter-agency group of experts was formed, and evolved into the GOSIP Advanced

Requirements Group, that now has responsibility for promulgating each new version of the GOSIP. NIST

chairs this group and has editing responsibility for the document. At the time the first draft of GOSIP was

written, the MAP and TOP specifications were nearing stability, vendor OSI implementations were being

successfully demonstrated, and commercial OSI products were just entering the marketplace. The intent

of GOSIP is to transmit Federal user requirements to vendors and to encourage vendors to build OSI

products satisfying those requirements. The GOSIP, unlike the MAP and TOP documents, is a mandate.

GOSIP mandates that Federal agencies acquire OSI products when acquiring the services provided by the

OSI protocols referenced in the document. Since the GOSIP must be referenced in Federal procurement

requests, where applicable, GOSIP contains only those OSI protocols which are expected to be

implemented in vendor products. The MAP and TOP documents included some specifications of OSI

protocols which those communities wanted the vendors to implement in the future. Accordingly, although

informal coordination has existed between the MAP/TOP and Federal communities, the protocols in GOSIP

have tended to be a subset of the protocols in the union of the MAP and TOP documents.

In order to promote interoperability among computer systems supplied to the electric power industry, the

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) initiated the Utility Communications Architecture (UCA) project.

The first phase of the project identified the information requirements within an electric utility. Subsequent

phases identified appropriate standards for inclusion in Version 1 of the UCA specification The UCA

document, like the MAP and TOP documents, is a specification of user requirements. Twenty utility companies participated in the review of the draft document, which was then formally released to the vendor

1
community. EPRI continues to have the responsibility for maintaining the UCA specification. OSI protocols are the foundation on which Version 1 of the UCA specification is based. The UCA authors were

knowledgeable of the MAP, TOP, and GOSIP documents and recognized the importance of aligning

specifications so that vendors would not be forced to build a different set of products for each new user community.

In April 1987, the Canadian federal government, announced a new policy on OSI. This policy, which

applies to all Canadian government departments, endorses OSI as a Information Technology (IT) strategy

in preference to any manufacturer-specific or installation-specific architecture and requires that departments

and agencies state a clear preference for OSI-based products and services in their procurements. In order

to assist users to migrate to OSI, work began in 1987 to develop the Canadian Open Systems Application

Criteria (COSAC). This work is led and coordinated by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) which is responsible for Canadian government IT standards and policy. COSAC comprises endorsements of the

OSI based standards, OSI functional profiles, and guidance documents, all of which are published as

Treasury Board Information Technology Standards. In producing COSAC, maximum alignment with other

government and international specifications has also been an objective. Thus, cooperation between the

five user communities to produce the IGOSS is just a formal extension to what has existed informally for some time.

1.2 PURPOSE

This specification is the standard reference for all IGOSS organizations to use when acquiring and

operating ADP systems or services and communications systems or services intended to conform to Open

Systems Interconnection protocols. This specification will allow major network users in Canada and the

United States to consolidate their procurement and operational requirements in a single document and is expected to be welcomed by OSI vendors because it implicitly represents significant purchasing power.

1.3 EVOLUTION OF THE IGOSS

An IGOSS Panel, which consists of members from each IGOSS organization, is responsible for creating a procurement specification that meets the common requirements of the participating user groups. Since

the IGOSS will be referenced in procurement requests, the document can only include functionality which

vendors are in the process of implementing or have already implemented.

For this version and all subsequent versions of the IGOSS, the IGOSS Panel, after consulting with

members of their respective organizations, recommends the protocols and services to be included in the

common procurement specification. In making this decision, the IGOSS Panel considers the progress

made in developing the standards and implementors agreements and the commitment of the vendors to develop products based on these documents. The IGOSS Panel members are then responsible for obtaining formal concurrence on the proposed content of the draft document from the organizations that they represent. Members of IGOSS organizations, as well as industry and government reviewers, will use

a 90 day public comment period as the mechanism to comment on the document. The IGOSS Panel will then modify the draft version of the IGOSS, incorporating those comments which are consistent with the

objectives of the IGOSS organizations. The panel members will then obtain final approval of the document

from their respective organizations before publishing the document in final form. (The IGOSS will be

published as a NIST special publication in the United States and as a Treasury Board IT Standard in Canada.) This approval process will apply when each new version of the IGOSS is issued.

IGOSS will be updated by issuing new versions at appropriate intervals, tentatively every 2 years, to reflect the progress being made by vendors in providing OSI products with new services for government and

commercial uses. A new version of IGOSS will supersede the previous version of the document. Every

attempt will be made to obtain backward compatibility with the previous version of the document. Every

2
new version of IGOSS will specify the architecture and protocols that were included in each of the previous

versions so that the protocols added to each version can easily be determined.

1.4 SCOPE

In an increasingly complex world, the need to exchange information has become an ever more important

factor in conducting business. Until recently, computer networking technology has not kept pace with this need to communicate. Even now, many users have "islands" of computer systems built by different vendors, or even by the same vendor, that cannot exchange information. The IGOSS indicates that, in response to this, the vendor community has developed a nonproprietary solution tor this requirement to exchange information. The solution uses OSI protocols, allowing computer systems built by different vendors to exchange data. These OSI protocols give users access to standardized applications which can

operate over diverse reliably interconnected subnetworks. The IGOSS lists the protocol specifications and

provides procurement alternatives.

IGOSS significantly expands the scope of user services provided by OSI applications. The IGOSS

electronic mail service uses the OSI standard for Message Handling Systems (MHS). There are two major

MHS components: the Message Transfer System (MTS) and the cooperating user agents. IGOSS specifies

two types of user agents for which International Standardized Profiles are currently under develpment.

Additional user agent (UA) types may be specified by procurers. The two internationally standardized User

Agents are the Interpersonal Messaging User Agent, used to send a personal message from an originator

to one or more recipients, and the Electronic Data Interchange User Agent, used to send and receive

business related tranactions using standard transaction sets. File transfer services are provided by the File Transfer, Access, and Management (FTAM) application. A remote terminal access capability is provided

by the Virtual Terminal (VT) application. The Directory Services application provides access to a distributed

directory on behalf of human users or OSI applications such as MHS or FTAM. The Remote Database

Access (RDA) application allows the interconnection of database applications resident in heterogeneous

environments. The Transaction Processing (TP) application provides for reliable support of distributed,

interdependent transactions. The X-Windows application allows a user to gain access to multiple computer

applications by dividing a screen into multiple sections, each section responding independently to input from a keyboard or a pointing device or both. The Manufacturing Messaging Specification (MMS) application

allows objects related to a process control environment to be accessed and manipulated across a network.

The Information Retrieval (IR) application provides information search and retrieval by converting queries

constructed in a local query language into a common representation. All of these applications use lower

layer OSI protocols to guarantee that end systems attached to subnetwork technologies [e.g., X.25 Wide

Area Network (WAN), Local Area Network (LAN), Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), Frame Relay] can interoperate.

1.5 RELATIONSHIP OF THE IGOSS TO EXISTING PROFILE DOCUMENTS

The IGOSS is a collaborative effort of organizations that have previously published the Canadian Open

System Application Criteria, the Manufacturing Automation Protocol specification, the Technical and Office

Protocol specification, the United States Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile and the Utility

Communications Architecture documents. Documents will continue to be published by the responsible

IGOSS organizations, but now they will primarily refer to the IGOSS to specify the OSI procurement

requirements for each organization. The documents will also contain specifications for any protocol

required by the organization, but not agreed to in common, and an applicability statement which indicates

how the IGOSS must or should be used.

3
1.6 APPLICABILITY

The IGOSS specifies a set of OSI protocols for computer networking that is intended for acquisition and

use by IGOSS organizations. Each IGOSS organization will specify the applicability of IGOSS to its own

members. The detailed statements of applicability will appear in supplementary profile documents, issued

by each IGOSS organization.

1.7 IGOSS FUNCTIONALITY

Version 2 of GOSIP was the base document used to prepare the IGOSS. All GOSIP Version 2 protocols are included in the IGOSS. The functionality added to the base document to fonri Version 1 of the IGOSS

is as follows:

1. Message Handling Systems (CCITT 1988 Recommendation);

2. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) User Agent;

3. File Transfer, Access, and Management (FTAM) - (Phase 3); 4. Virtual Terminal Service (S-mode Paged and X.3 profiles);

5. Directory Services;

6. Remote Database Access;

7. Transaction Processing;

8. Manufacturing Message Specification;

9. X-Windows over OSI;

10. Information Retrieval;

- 11. Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI);

12. Frame Relay;

13. Point to Point Protocol (PPP);

14. Intermediate System- Intermediate System routing (IS-IS) protocol;

15. Inter-Domain Routing Protocol (IDRP);

16. Network Management protocols; and

1 7. Connectionless Upper Layer services.

18. Minimal OSI Upper Layer Services

1.8 SOURCES OF PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS

1.8.1 Primary Source

1.8.1.1 Relationship of the IGOSS Protocol Specifications to Workshop Agreements

The primary source of protocol specifications in the IGOSS is the Stable Implementation Agreements for Open Systems interconnection Protocols [NIST 11 , hereafter refen-ed to as the Workshop Agreements. By

primary source, it is meant that where the IGOSS uses a given protocol, it cites that protocol by reference

to the Workshop Agreements. The primary source is used in all instances where the protocol of interest

has been specified in the Workshop Agreements. Section 4 of this specification augments those

agreements when necessary to provide the functionality required by IGOSS organizations.

The primary source document was created and is maintained by the Open Systems Environment (OSE)

Implementors Workshop (OIW). The Workshop Agreements provide implementation specifications that are

derived from service and protocol standards issued by the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) and the Consultative Committee for International Telegraphy and Telephony (CCITT). A copy of the

Workshop Agreements is essential to thoroughly understand the material in this document.

4
A new version of the Workshop Agreements is created each year, following the December OSE

Implementor's Workshop meeting, if a sufficient amount of new functionality has accumulated since the

previous version was issued. It is the intent of the Workshop that new versions of the Workshop

Agreements be backwardly compatible with previous versions. Replacement pages applying to the latest version of the Workshop Agreements may be published at regular intervals during the year. These

replacement pages may contain errata to the original stable agreements that are approved by the

Workshop plenary. The latest replacement pages are distributed to all workshop attendees and are

available through several sources. (See NIST Reference 1 for ordering information.)

Each new version of the IGOSS will reference the latest appropriate version of the Workshop Agreements

as the base document. These agreements, although stable, can be modified by errata which correct

technical and editorial mistakes or by changes which are required to align with evolving international

standards or agreements developed in other regional workshops. These changes to the Workshop

Agreements are stabilized each December and become effective as an implementation requirement the

following December (e.g., the stabilized Workshop Agreement for December, 1993 becomes effective as an implementation requirement as of December, 1994). This becomes effective with the December, 1993

Workshop Agreements.

Each version of the IGOSS is issued in draft form for public comment before it is issued in final fomn. Final

editions of the IGOSS will reference only the Stable Workshop Agreements. [Editors Note: The authors of the IGOSS reserve the right to reference agreements that are not yet stable (i.e.. Working Agreements)

in the draft edition, as long as these agreements are envisioned to be stable by the time the final edition

of the IGOSS is published. The final edition of the IGOSS may reference a later version of the Stable

Workshop Agreements than is referenced by the draft edition, so that agreements that became stable

during the interval between the draft and final edition can be included.]

1.8.1.2 Relationship of tiie IGOSS Protocol Specifications to International Standardized Profiles

International Standardized Profiles (ISPs) are functional profiles which are approved for publication by the

ISO/IEC JTC1 Special Group on Functional Standards (SGFS) under SGFS procedures. These functional

profiles should be technically harmonized at the regional workshop level before submission to the SGFS.

It is a goal that the IGOSS technical specifications reference ISPs, when possible. The linkage by which

this will occur will be the Workshop Agreements. For each protocol, the appropriate Special Interest Groups will determine if and when It is appropriate to replace the existing Workshop Agreement text with a reference to an ISP.

1.8.2 Secondary Sources

The IGOSS must be complete in that open systems procured in accordance with it must interoperate and

must provide service generally useful for government and commercial computer networking applications.

The Workshop Agreements continue to evolve, but remain incomplete. (The appendices of the IGOSS cite needed work.) Thus, where the Workshop Agreements are not complete, the IGOSS may augment

protocol and service specifications from the following sources.

0 International Standards and Recommendations

o Draft International Standards

0 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standards o Working Implementation Agreements from the OIW

Since this profile is one of open systems, the secondary sources include specifications that are international

standards or are advancing to become international standards. They are included in the IGOSS, where

6
needed, to help satisfy the criterion of utility. Note that secondary sources exclude protocols, however

mature, that are not a part of the international standards process.

i 1 .8.3 Tertiary Sources '

Even the secondary sources named above may not provide a complete and useful networking system

today. It may be necessary for the IGOSS to augment protocol and service specifications from the

following sources.

0 National Standards o Government Standards o Military Standards

o Other publicly available specifications

The use of specifications from other than the primary and secondary sources is undesirable. It is expressly

intended that these omissions from standards work be brought to the attention of the international

standards bodies so that acceptable international standards may be developed as rapidly as possible. The

IGOSS Panel will replace all tertiary source protocols in the IGOSS with suitable primary and secondary

sources, as soon as they are available.

1.9 IGOSS ERRATA

All errata to the IGOSS will be subject to the same public review process that exists for the IGOSS

document. The errata may take effect at any time after the public review period if approved by the IGOSS

Panel. Since each new version of the IGOSS will supersede the previous version, errata to previous

versions will be published in subsequent versions.

6
2. DESCRIPTIONS OF ARCHITECTURE AND PROTOCOLS

This section briefly describes the IGOSS specification and networking architecture. For a more thorough

understanding, consult the User's Guide [NIST 7] and other references cited in this profile.

2.1 SPECIFICATION ARCHITECTURE

IGOSS includes a wide variety of application services, lower layer communication services and

subnetworking technologies (See Figure 2.1 ). It is not a requirement that any one system will support all of the capabilities defined in IGOSS. Instead, it is expected that acquisition authorities will select a subset

of capabilities that meet specific communication requirements.

To facilitate this process IGOSS defines a number of subprofiles as building blocks that may be selected

and combined to define a particular procurement. Subprofiles define the specific multi-layer protocol

requirements for the provision of a chosen service or subnetwork technology.

IGOSS provides the acquisition authority with 3 major classes of subprofiles:

• Application subprofiles - define the upper (i.e.. Application through Session) layer requirements for support of specific user services (e.g., Message Handling Systems).

• Lower layer subprofiles - define the Network and Transport layer requirements for support of specific end-to-end communication services in various networking et-.vironments.

• Subnetwork subprofiles - define the Network, Data Link, and Physical layer requirements for support of direct system attachment to specific subnetwork technologies.

This partitioning of OSI services and protocols reflects the independence of user requirements for upper

layer application services, lower layer communication services, and use of specific real subnetwork

technologies.

The determination of subprofile boundaries or interfaces has been made on the basis of a functional

separation for the purposes of specification, definition of conformance, and flexibility of procurement. It is not required that IGOSS subprofiles, or specified combinations of subprofiles, be implemented as discrete

products. Implementors are free to adopt any internal system architecture for the implementation of OSI

services and protocols specified in IGOSS subprofiles.

Within a given subprofile there may be major procurement options that relate to the support of optional

functionality, the role in which a system operates, or other similar issues. These options parameterize a

given subprofile into specific product procurement categories that must be specified by the acquisition

authority. Procurement categories in Version 1 of the IGOSS may have variables which are explained in the section in which they appear. All Procurement categones will appear in bold face typeset.

In general, the acquisition authority has the flexibility to choose the subprofile combinations to be supported

within a system. Where there are technical restrictions on the correct or advisable subprofile combinations,

the subprofile definitions will state appropriate binding rules and recommendations. Likewise, certain

restrictions may be placed on the selection of subprofiles for the purpose of effecting policy aimed at insuring an overall viable, Interoperable networking architecture. These restrictions are Implemented by

making the support of some subprofiles mandatory while requiring others to remain as optional additions.

7
Figure 2.1 depicts the components of the IGOSS specification and networking architecture. The figure

shows combinations of subprofiles that can be selected to define a complete networking procurement.

Each subprofile denotes its selection status using a Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement

(PlCS)-like notation (e.g., [0.1]).

Again, the subprofile boundaries and interfaces depicted in the figure are not meant to constrain the internal

architecture or product configuration of IGOSS implementations. For example, different application

protocols may use a common implementation of OSI upper layer services through the use of ACSE/Presentation service Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). See Section 3.1.2 and Appendix

5 for more details on APIs.

8
9
2.2 NETWORKING ARCHITECTURE

IGOSS provides a wide variety of standard OS! application services to support various end user data

communication requirements (e.g., file transfer, messaging, virtual terminal, information retrieval, remote

database access, networked windowing, directory, manufacturing messaging, transaction processing, and

network management). Each application may require a different set of services from the Application,

Presentation and Session Layers. Thus, most IGOSS application subprofiles specify the layers 5, 6 and

7 requirements for each application service.

081 provides several, potentially non-interoperable, options for lower-layer data communication services.

Achieving OSI in large user communities is best accomplished by using a single method (subprofile) to perform the functions of end-to-end reliable data transfer. To assure interoperable data transfer for a

variety of applications across a variety of subnetwork technologies, IGOSS mandates support of lower-layer

services provided by Transport Protocol Class 4 (TP4) and the Connectionless Mode Network Protocol

(CLNP). The use of TP4 and CLNP provides a common basis for reliable end-to-end communication

across all types of subnetworking technology. The support of appropriate subprofiles based upon TP4 and

CLNP (i.e., COTS-CLNS in end systems, and CLNS-Relay in intermediate systems) is mandatory for all IGOSS systems.

IGOSS provides additional, optional, choices for the provision of lower-layer communication services. In particular, IGOSS includes subprofiles for the provision of Connection-Oriented Transport services over the

Connection-Oriented Network Service (i.e., COTS(X)-CONS) and the Connectionless Mode Transport

Service over the Connectionless Network Service {\.e., CLTS-CLNS) as procurement options. The

specification of these subprofiles is sufficient for achieving interworking among IGOSS systems that

additionally choose to support these optional lower-layer services.

It is useful to enable user selection from among a set of subnetwork technologies for local and wide area

networking. These different technologies exhibit physical, performance, and cost differences that render one technology more appropriate than others for particular uses. IGOSS provides a wide variety of standard subnetwork technologies (e.g., LAN, X.25 WAN, ISDN, Frame Relay, Point-to-Point links) through

the definition of Subnetwork Subprofiles. One, or more, subnetwork subprofiles must be specified for each

real subnetwork interface of a system.

In circumstances in which specific deployment requirements can not be met by any of the technologies

provided by the IGOSS 1 subnetwork subprofiles, other technologies may be used. In such cases the

acquisition authority must provide a proper subnetwork subprofile specification, including conformance

requirements, so as to ensure the procurement of an effective product; that is, a product that is capable

of supporting the selected IGOSS lower layer subprofiles and can interoperate with other IGOSS systems

to be attached to the subnetwork.

IGOSS also addresses a number of supporting services and ancillary issues (e.g., exchange formats,

naming and addressing, security, and management information) related to the provision of OSI data

communications. While some of these issues are not directly concerned with the procurement of OSI

protocols, they are included to allow the acquisition authority to define an effective environment for the

deployment and use of IGOSS protocols.

A goal of this profile is to permit an acquisition authority to issue unambiguous procurement requests for standard applications operating over networks using standard protocols. The acquisition authority

determines the required applications and the required networking environment and the IGOSS defines the

appropriate subprofiles. For example, if an acquisition authority requires a general purpose File Transfer

Access and Management service with management agent support, on a "thin-net" Carrier Sense Multiple

10
Access/Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) LAN subnetwork, IGOSS provides tine following subprofile

combination:

1. IGOSS 1 FTAM (RR)

2. IGOSS 1 Network Management

3. IG0SS1 COTS-CLNS

4. IG0SS1 LAN (CSMA/CD, lOBase 2)

The specification of this subprofile combination is sufficient to define an Interoperable file transfer service

in the required networking environment. Note: All subprofiles in the first version of the IGOSS begin with

IGOSS 1.

2.3 PROTOCOL DESCRIPTIONS

Following are brief narratives of the general services provided by protocols in each layer of the IGOSS

architecture to the layer above.

The Application Layer (layer 7) allows for protocols and services required by particular user-designed

application processes. Functions satisfying particular user requirements and application service elements

(See sec. 3.2.1) that can be used by more than one application are contained in this layer. Representation

and transfer of Information necessary to communicate between applications are the responsibility of the

lower layers. See Section 3.2 for the references that apply to each IGOSS application.

The Presentation Layer (layer 6) specifies or, optionally, negotiates the way iriformation is represented for exchange by application entities. The Presentation Layer provides the representation of: 1 ) data transferred

between application entities, 2) the data structure that the application entitles use, and 3) operations on the

data's structure. The Presentation Layer is concerned only with the syntax of the transferred data. The

data's meaning Is known only to the application entities, and not to the Presentation Layer. See

References [NIST 1; ISO 1,20,21,24,25]. The Presentation Layer also supports a simple connectionless

presentation service [ISO 57].

The Session Layer (layer 5) allows cooperating application entities to organize and synchronize

conversation and to manage data exchange. To transfer the data, session connections use transport

connections. During a session, session services are used by application entities to regulate dialogue by

ensuring an orderly message exchange on the session connection. See References [NIST 1 ; ISO 1 ,1 4,1 5; CCITT 12,13]. The Session Layer also supports a simple connectionless session service [ISO 58].

The Transport Layer (layer 4) provides either connection-oriented or connectionless, transparent transfer

of data between cooperating session entitles. The Transport Layer entitles optimize the available network

services to provide the performance required by each session entity. Optimization Is constrained by the

overall demands of concurrent session entities and by the quality and capacity of the network services

available to the Transport Layer entities. In the connection-oriented transport service, transport connections

have end-to-end significance, where the ends are defined as corresponding session entities in communicating end systems. Connection-oriented transport protocols regulate flow, detect and correct

errors, and multiplex data, on an end-to-end basis. See References [NIST 1; ISO 1,12,13; CCITT 10,11].

See references [ISO 46-47] for the connectionless transport service option.

The Network Layer (layer 3) provides packet routing and relaying between end systems on the same

network or on interconnected networks, independent of the transport protocol used. The network layer may

also provide hop-by-hop network service enhancements, flow control, and load leveling. Services provided

by the network layer are Independent of the distance separating interconnected networks. See References

[NIST 1,3; ISO 1-8,11; CCITT 1; NCS 1].

11
The Data Link Layer (layer 2) provides communication between two or more adjacent systems. Tlie data

linl< layer performs frame formatting, error checking, addressing, and other functions necessary to ensure

accurate data transmission between adjacent systems. Note that the data link layer can operate in conjunction with several different access methods in the physical layer. See References [NIST 1-3,5; ISO

1,26,28; CCITT 1].

The Physical layer (layer 1 ) provides a physical connection for transmission of data between data link entities. Physical layer entities perform electrical encoding and decoding of the data for transmission over a medium and regulate access to the physical network. See References [NIST 1-3; ISO 1; ISO 29-31].

12
3. PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS

3.1 SUBPROFILE SPECIFICATIONS

The individual subprofile and interface specifications in this section are designed to be used directly in Requests for Proposals. However, acquisition authorities must take additional steps to ensure a

specification which fully meets their requirements. Any additional requirements should be stated as

modifications or additions to the IGOSS subprofile specifications in the sections that follow.

3.1.1 Subprofile Selection

The networking architecture described in Section 3 suggests a range of choices of subprofiles that span

the layers of the 081 reference model. Clearly, a subset of these subprofiles may adequately satisfy an

individual acquisition requirement. The acquisition authority has the responsibility to select and combine

IGOSS subprofiles to define an effective procurement that meets user data communication requirements.

The selection of IGOSS application subprofiles is based upon user requirements for data communication

services and the policy requirements of this specification. There are no other restrictions on the

combinations of application subprofiles that can be selected for a given system.

IGOSS also provides, as an option, a generic Connectionless Upper Layers (CLUL) subprofile. While no IG0SS1 applications use these connectionless upper layer services, the CLUL subprofile is provided to support non-IGOSS applications that may require such services.

Most IGOSS application subprofiles require the support of the Connection-Oriented Transport Service

(COTS). Appropriate lower layer end system subprofiles (e.g., COTS-CLNS, and optionally

COTS(X)-CONS) must be selected to provide lower layer services for these applications. The CLUL

application subprofile requires the support of the Connectionless Mode Transport Service (CLTS). If the

CLUL application subprofile Is selected, the CLTS-CLNS lower layer end system services must also be

selected.

The selection of lower layer services are dictated by the OSl communication role(s) that a system performs,

the service requirements of application subprofiles, and the subnetwork technologies over which it must

operate. To assure Interoperability over the widest range of real communication environments, IGOSS

mandates the support of subprofiles based upon Transport Class 4 (TP4) and the Connectionless Network

Protocol (CLNP). Thus, for end systems, support of the COTS-CLNS subprofile is mandatory. For

Intermediate systems support of the CLNS-Relay subprofile Is mandatory. These mandatory lower layer

subprofiles can be combined with all IGOSS subnetwork technologies.

Additional, optional lower layer end system subprofiles may be selected by the acquisition authority. In particular, IGOSS provides the option of supporting the Connection Oriented Network Service (CONS) in the COTS(X)-CONS subprofile. Likewise, the CLTS-CLNS end system lower layer services may be

selected to support the CLUL application subprofile.

At least one subnetwork subprofile must be specified for each real subnetwork interface of the system.

Some subnetwork technologies can only be combined with a subset of the IGOSS lower layer subprofiles.

The acquisition authority must examine the requirements stated in the Lower Layer and Subnetwork

Subprofile definitions to determine the valid combinations.

13
3.1.2 Service Interface Requirements

The IGOSS mandates no service interface accessibility beyond that indicated in the Workshop Agreements;

therefore, any additional service interface accessibility requirements must be clearly stated and mandated

by the acquisition authority. IGOSS mandates no specific direct access to transport services although

existing conformance tests require access to the Transport layer service boundary. If the acquisition

authority requires direct access to transport services, such a requirement must be included in a solicitation. The issues involved in determining such a requirement are complex. Refer to the User's Guide [NIST 7]

for a discussion of these issues.

Should an acquisition authority not request direct access to service interfaces, such access might or might

not be provided at the discretion of individual vendors. For example, some vendors may provide access

to session services, others may provide access to transport and network services, and still others may limit access to association control services only. Of course, some vendors may provide direct access to service

interfaces at the human user interface only. When there is no requirement for a service interface between

layers, vendors might merge multiple layer implementations. Such a merger is often implemented to accrue performance benefits to the user.

Should an acquisition authority request direct access to a specific service interface, care should be taken

to specify the general functional and operational objectives of the interface; otherwise, particular vendor

interface implementations might or might not meet user requirements.

While specifying the general functional and operational objectives for a service interface should enable the

vendor to meet a user's functional requirements, such a specification will not ensure porfability of software,

written to the interface, across product lines from multiple vendors. Work is underway in the IEEE POSIX

networking services interface committee to create a series of Application Program Interface (API)

specifications that will enable portability of software written to those specifications. The IEEE has

standardized API specifications for the Message Handling Systems [IEEE 1-2] and Directory Services [IEEE

1,3] applications. It is recommended that these APIs be specified in procurement requests when there is a requirement to develop portable software that interfaces with these applications. The IEEE is currently

developing APIs to other OSI services which will be referenced in a future version of the IGOSS. See

Appendix 5 for further information.

When APIs do not exist, acquisition authorities requiring service interfaces that enable software portability

must include a very detailed and explicit interface specification within the solicitation. Such a specification

is difficult and expensive to produce, and will limit the number of vendors that bid on a solicitation. Thus,

this practice is not recommended. A more prudent course, at the present time, is to specify the general

functional and operational objectives of a service interface, leaving implementation decisions to the vendor.

3.2 APPLICATION SUBPROFILES

This section contains the Application Layer subprofiles which operate in conjunction with OSI lower layer

subprofiles to provide services which meet many government and commercial user requirements.

Procurement categories are listed for each application. These procurement categories are intended to assist users in making high-level procurement decisions, parficularly those affecting interoperability with

other systems; they are not intended to provide a complete procurement specification. Users should

consult the User's Guide [NIST 7] and, where applicable, the appropriate Evaluation Guidelines [NIST 9-1 0, 15] for additional information useful in specifying procurement requirements and evaluating vendor

proposals.

14
3.2.1 Common Application Service Elements

Application Service Elements (ASEs) provide common Application Layer services that allow the exchange

of information among application processes. The ASEs used by one or more of the IGOSS applications are described in the following subsections. The ASE(s) used by each application will be specified in the

corresponding application subprofile figure.

The Association Control Service Element (ACSE) [ISO 22-25] controls the association between two

Application Entities; it is responsible for establishing and releasing an association. Certain information,

such as the identity of the application processes and the supporting Application Service Elements, must

be agreed between the Application Entities before the association is established. The ACSE, as specified

in Part 5, clause 5 of the Workshop Agreements, is required to support all IGOSS applications except the

CCITT 1984 Message Handling Systems application.

3.2.1.2 Remote Operations Service Element

The Remote Operations Service Element (ROSE) provides the facilities to invoke a remote operation on

another computer, to have the result of the operation or an error message returned to the invoker, or to have the remote operation rejected as invalid. ROSE [ISO 50-51] can be used by the Common

Management Information Protocol and the CCITT 1988 Message Handling Systems and Directory Services

applications. ROSE must be implemented as specified in Part 5, clause 6 of the Workshop Agreements.

3.2.1.3 Reliable Transfer Service Element

The Reliable Transfer Service Element (RTSE) provides the facilities to reliably transfer large amounts of data between distributed application processes. RTSE uses the Activity and Minor-synchronize functional

units of the Session Layer to set checkpoints in a large data string so that data transfer can be restarted

at a convenient point if the underlying network connection breaks. RTSE [ISO 52-53] is used by the CCITT

1988 Message Handling Systems application and optionally, by the Directory Service application, and must

be implemented as specified in Part 5, clause 7 of the Workshop Agreements.

3.2.1.4 Commitment, Concurrency and Recovery Service Element

The Commitment, Concurrency and Recovery (CCR) Service Element provides the facilities to insure that a series of multi-party operations completely succeed or, if not, to ensure that a rollback to the initial state occurs. CCR [ISO 54-55] is used by the Transaction Processing application to implement provider

supported transactions and must be implemented as specified in Part 5 of the Workshop Agreements.

3.2.1.5 Transaction Processing User Application Service Element

The Transaction processing protocol does not provide an explicit protocol for transmitting user data. The

Transaction Processing (TP) Service standard provides a TP-DATA service. This service is implemented

in the protocol by the User Application Service Element (U-ASE). The Transaction Processing standard

specifies a general mechanism which allows a set of programs to interact in a controlled manner. Because

it is a general mechanism, it was impossible to specify what data would flow between programs; this is in sharp contrast to X.400, for example, in which data flows were able to be architected by the standards

committee. The U-ASE is both separate from and part of the TP program. It is a part of the TP program

because it is crafted to encode and decode its data stream. A U-ASE made for a specific data stream is useful only to programs that need that data stream. It is separate from a program because it can be used

by many programs. A TP program can use two different U-ASEs to communicate with different types of users. For example, an accounts payable query program might use different U-ASEs to communicate with

15
different classes of users. The program would generate the same data stream. The U-ASE could filter, encrypt or simply encode the data for transmission depending on where the end-user was located.

3.2.2 File Transfer, Access and Management

The File Transfer, Access, and Management (FTAM) standard [ISO 2-6] allows for the effective transfer, access, and management of different file types on remote systems by creating a virtual filestore which

emulates the file services offered by existing file service systems. Transfer occurs using the virtual filestore which is then mapped onto the real filestore when the transfer is complete.

An FTAM system must support one or more of the following procurement categories.

"IG0SS1 FTAM (IS)"

"IG0SS1 FTAM (IR)"

"IG0SS1 FTAM (RS)"

"IG0SS1 FTAM (RR)"

An FTAM implementation can operate as an initiator of remote file activity, as a responder to requests for remote file activity, or as both initiator and responder. Further, FTAM implementations can operate as senders (of data to receivers), receivers (of data from senders), or both. Thus, in the procurement category

listed above, X can be one or more members of the set that specifies the four possible roles: "IS" (initiator- sender), "IR" (initiator-receiver), "RS" (responder-sender) and "RR" (responder-receiver). The acquisition

authority must determine the requirements for each FTAM device in terms of above-mentioned roles.

All FTAM systems must support implementation profiles T2.3 (Positional File Transfer), M1 .3 (Management)

and A1.3 (Simple File Access) as they are described in Part 10 of the Workshop Agreements. Each of these implementation profiles requires the support of certain document types and makes the support of other document types optional. If the procurement authority requires the support of an optional document

type, it should be so stated in the procurement request.

Figure 3.2.2 shows the application subprofile for FTAM implementations. The upper layer support

requirements for FTAM are specified in Part 5, clause 13.1 of the Workshop Agreements. In addition, all FTAM systems must support the Restart- Data-Transfer and Recovery functional units as specified in Part

1 0 of the Workshop Agreements.

T

Application

Layer

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

Figure 3.2.2. FTAM Application Subprofile.

FTAM

ISO 8571-4

ACSE

ISO 8650

ISO 8823

ISO 8327
3.2.2.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer Subprofiies

This application subprofiie requires tlie use of the Connection Oriented Transport Service. As such it nnay

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subprofiies to define a complete

procurement.

3.2.3 i\/lessage i-iandiing Systems

The Message Handling Systems (MHS) Recommendations [CCITT 2-9, CCITT 14, CCITT 28-36] provide

message exchange by means of a Message Transfer System consisting of a series of Message Transfer

Agents (MTAs) that are responsible for relaying a message from an originator's User Agent (UA) to a

recipient's User Agent. A Message Store (MS) can act as an intermediary between the Message Transfer

System and the User Agent. A Message Store can submit and accept delivery of messages from the

Message Transfer System on behalf of the User Agent as well as perform message storage functions. Off- loading User Agent services to a Message Store allows the configuration of less complex User Agents.

The MHS procurement categories are structured to allow users significant flexibility in configuring their systems. The MHS procurement categories vary with the CCITT Recommendations upon which the

implementation is based, with the configuration of the Message Handling System, and with the services

provided by individual components of the configuration. Users may select several implementations from one procurement category or build their system by selecting implementations from among different

procurement categories.

IGOSS Message Handling Systems can be implemented in accordance with either the CCITT 1984 MHS

Recommendations or the CCITT 1988 MHS Recommendations.

MHS systems conforming to the CCITT 1 988 MHS Recommendations provide significant additional services

that are not found in CCITT 1984 MHS implementations. The CCITT 1988 Recommendations also allow users significant flexibility in configuring their systems. Message Transfer Agents, User Agents and

Message Stores can be colocated or remote from each other. P3 is the protocol between an MTA and a

remote Message Store or User Agent; P7 is the protocol between a remote User Agent and a Message

Store. (See fig. 3.2.3.(a)).

These factors result in the following procurement categories for CCITT 1988 MHS implementations. See

the Confomnance clause of Part 8 of the Workshop Agreements for details on how these configurations

relate to the International Standardized Profiles.

"IG0SS1 IVIHS 1988 iWTA" specifies a 1988 relay MTA.

"iGOSSI MHS 1988 IWITA-UA" specifies a 1988 end system in which the MTA is co-located with a CCITT 1988 Interpersonal Messaging (IPM) User Agent, an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) User Agent

or another type of User Agent not standardized by the CCITT.

"IG0SS1 IVIHS 1988 MTA-MS-UA" specifies an end system in which a Message Store and User Agent

are co-located with the MTA.

"IGOSSI MHS 1988 MTA-MS" specifies an end system in which a Message Store is co-located with the

MTA.

"IGOSSI MHS 1988 Remote UA-MS" specifies a remote User Agent that is co-located with a Message

Store.

17
"IG0SS1 MHS 1988 Remote UA-P3" specifies a remote User Agent that does not require Message

Store services.

"IG0SS1 MHS 1988 Remote UA-P7" specifies a remote User Agent that does require Message Store

services.

"IG0SS1 MHS 1988 MS" specifies a remote Message Store. The Message Store serves a remote User

Agent.

In the procurement categories for CCITT 1988 MHS Implementations, UAs may support one or more of the following: Interpersonal Messaging (IPMS), Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), or any other content

type (e.g.. Voice Messaging, InterLibrary Loan, Military Messaging (P772), or Message Security Protocol

(MSP)). The "S" symbol may optionally be added to indicate that a secure UA is required. The "G" symbol

may be added after "MTA" in all procurement categories containing an MTA to indicate that an ADMD

gateway cabability is required.

Figure 3.2.3(a). MHS 1988 Configuration Alternatives.

A 1988-based Message Transfer Agent (MTA) must comply with the Common Messaging Message

Transfer specification in Part 8 of the Workshop Agreements. This requires support of the 1 984

Interworking Functional Group to provide interoperability with CCITT 1984 MHS Implementations by

downgrading from the 1988 PI protocol to the 1984 PI protocol when relaying from 1988-based to 1984-

based MTAs.

Part 8 of the Workshop Agreements specify support for content independent Message Stores or Message

Stores supporting specific content types.

All MHS functional entities may access the Directory Service using the Directory User Agent (DUA). An

international standard does not yet exist for the interface between these entities and the DUA; thus, the

interface is left to either vendor or user definition. When the UA accesses the Directory Service, the

Directory name-to-address resolution is performed before message submission. When an MTA accesses

18
the Directory Service, the Directory name-to-address resolution is performed after the message is submitted. When an address cannot be determined, a non-delivery notification is returned. Part 8, clause

8.4.3 of the Workshop Agreements provides examples of information requests that can be made to a

Directory Service using the UA-DUA or MTA-DUA interface.

All Interpersonal Message (IPM) User Agents and all Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) User Agents must

be able to access Directory Services using the UA-DUA interface to perform the following functions:

1 . Verify the existence of a Directory Name.

2. Return the Originator/Recipient (0/R) Address(es) that correspond to a Directory Name.

3. Determine whether a Directory Name presented denotes a user or a Distribution List. 4. Return the members of a Distribution List. 5. Return the capabilities of the entity referred to by a Directory Name, (e.g., support of particular Body

Part)

6. Return the public key or certificate referred to by a Directory Name.

The additional Directory Services functions listed in Part 8, Annex B of the Workshop Agreements are not

required, but may be specifically requested by procurement authorities. Access to Directory Services by

the Message Transfer System (MTS) is not required, but may be specifically requested by procurement

authorities.

ISP AMH1 Part 1 [ISO 111] specifies the Security Functional group as three security classes. Security

class SO implements all security mechanisms outside the MTS (i.e., within the UA or MS). In security

class SI, most of the security mechanisms are implemented outside the MTS; however, the MTS provides

services related to secure access management. Security class S2 provides authentication and nonrepudiation security services within the MTS. Each of the three security classes has a variant, denoted as SOC, S1C and S2C which mandates support of end-to-end confidentiality. Systems implemented in accordance with the CCITT 1988 MHS Recommendation with security services must provide the security

services specified in security class SOC. These include integrity of the message content, authentication

of the MTS-user who originated the message, authentication of the MTS-user to whom the message was

delivered, and content confidentiality. This security class mandates that all services be provided by the

MTS-user; there are no security services implemented within the MTS. Additional security services may

be requested, if needed, by selecting the appropriate functional groupings from the ISP.

The signing encryption and key management mechanisms used to provide the authentication, integrity and

confidentiality security services are beyond the scope of this document. They will be specified in companion documents issued by each IGOSS organization.

Although MHS systems conforming to the CCITT 1988 MHS Recommendations provide significant

additional services beyond those specified in the CCITT 1984 Recommendations, procurement categories

for CCITT 1984 MHS implementations are included in the IGOSS. This will allow current users of CCITT

1984 MHS implementations, who do not require the additional services available in CCITT 1988 MHS

implementations, to add similar systems to their installed base, perhaps at less cost. It should be noted

that the Interpersonal Messaging System (IPMs) 1984 Interworking Functional Group insures that all CCITT

1988 MHS implementations will be backwardly compatible for Interpersonal Messaging with CCITT 1984

MHS implementations in the subset of services that they have in common.

Two categories of CCITT 1984 MHS implementations are defined for procurement purposes.

"IG0SS1 MHS 1984 MTA-UA" specifies a 1984 end system in which the MTA is co-located with a CCITT 1984 Interpersonal Messaging (IPM) User Agent. The MTA also has a message relay capability.

19
"IG0SS1 MHS 1 984 MTA" specifies an MTA that functions strictly as a relay MTA.

All IGOSS CCITT 1984 Message Handling Systems must adhere to the agreements for Private

Management Domains in Part 7, clause 5 of the Workshop Agreements. All PRMDs must implement and

use Transport class 4 and the Connectionless Network Service. CCITT mandates that Administration

Domains, which are public message systems operating on public data networks, use Transport class 0 and

the Connection Oriented Network Service. PRMD end systems that are also connected to ADMDs must

also implement Transport class 0 and the Connection Oriented Network Service when acting as a gateway

between the two domains. If an ADMD gateway capability is required, insert "(G)" after "MTA" in both

procurement categories listed above.

Figure 3.2.3(b) shows the application subprofile for CCITT 1984 and 1988 MHS implementations. ROSE

is required only in those CCITT 1988 MHS configurations in which the Message Store and/or User Agent

is remotely located from the MTA. A CCITT 1988 MHS implementation may use either the Reliable

Transfer Service (RTS) or RTSE to provide reliable transfer services, but must use the RTS when

interoperating with a CCITT 1984 MHS implementation. Application, Presentation and Session Layer

support requirements for Message Handling Systems are specified in Part 5, clause 13.2 of the Workshop

Agreements.

t MHS (1984) MHS (1988)

Application RTS RTS or ROSE ACSE

Layer CCITT RTSE ISO 9072-2 ISO

X.410 ISO 9066-2 8650

Presentation NULL ISO

Layer 8823

Session ISO ISO

Layer 8327 8327

Figure 3.2.3(b). MHS Application Subprofile.

The CCITT 1988 Recommendations specify the protocol for an Interpersonal Messaging User Agent which

provides additional services beyond those provided by the Interpersonal User Agent specified in the CCITT

1984 Recommendations. CCITT Recommendations F.435 [CCITT 46] and X.435 [CCITT 47] specify the

services and protocol for an Electronic Data Interchange User Agent. The following subsections reference

the agreements that apply to these User Agents.

3.2.3.1 Interpersonal Messaging User Agent

A CCITT 1988 Interpersonal Messaging User Agent must comply with the IPM Service clause of Part 8 of the Workshop Agreements. A CCITT 1984 Interpersonal Messaging User Agent must comply with Part

7, clause 5.3.6 of the Workshop Agreements.

3.2.3.2 Electronic Data Interchange User Agent

An Electronic Data Interchange User Agent provides services related to the exchange of business forms

by the MHS application, but independent of the message exchange format (e.g., XI 2, EDIFACT). An

Electronic Data Interchange User Agent interworking with the CCITT 1988 Message Transfer Service must

comply with the EDI Messaging service clause of Part 8 of the Workshop Agreements. An Electronic Data

20
Interchange User Agent can interwork with the CCITT 1984 Message Transfer Service but can not provide

the full range of services specified in the CCITT F.435 Recomnriendation.

3.2.3.3 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer Subproflles

This application subprofile requires the use of the Connection Oriented Transport Service. As such it may

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subproflles to define a complete

procurement.

3.2.4 Virtual Terminal - Basic Class

The Virtual Terminal (VT) standard [ISO 32-35] specifies how terminal systems and host applications on

a network can communicate without requiring one side to know the terminal characteristics of the other

side. The capabilities and constraints of different types of terminal-application dialogues are defined by a

virtual terminal profile.

These profiles correspond to the following IGOSS procurement categories for VT systems. A VT system

must support one or more of these procurement categories.

"IG0SS1 VT GENERALIZED TELNET'

"IG0SS1 VT FORMS"

"IG0SS1 VT S-MODE PAGED"

"IG0SS1 VT X.3"

The Generalized TELNET profile provides functionality identical to the TELNET protocol of the TCP/IP

protocol suite. The Generalized TELNET profile is specified in Part 14, clause 8.5 of the Workshop

Agreements.

The Forms profile supports forms-based applications with local entry and validation of data performed by

the terminal system. The Forms profile is spedfied in Part 14, clause 8.3 of the Workshop Agreements.

The S-mode Paged profile provides a forms capability typified by the existing base of block-mode terminals.

The S-mode Paged profile is specified by the International Standardized Profile AVT23. [ISO 110]

The X.3 profile provides functionality identical to the set of CCITT recommendations for a Packet

Assembler/Disassembler (PAD) (X.3, X.28, X.29). The X.3 profile is specified in Part 14, clause 8.4 of the

Workshop Agreements.

21
Figure 3.2.4 shows the application subprofile for VT implementations. The VT upper layer support

requirements are specified in Part 5, clause 1 3.4 of the Workshop Agreements.

T

Application

Layer

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

VT

ISO 9041

ACSE

ISO 8650

ISO 8823

ISO 8327

Figure 3.2.4. VT Application Subprofile.

3.2.4.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer Subproflles

This application subprofile requires the use of the Connection Oriented Transport Service. As such it may

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subprofiles to define a complete

procurement.

3.2.5 Transaction Processing

The OSI Transaction Processing (OSI TP) standard [ISO 59-61] and International Standardized Profile (ISP)

[ISO 104] support a set of logically related operations affecting interrelated data/resources across separate

open systems in which the transaction is not simply an exchange of messages but the exchanges form a

protected indivisible set of messages. The ISP augments the standard by specifying the options required

to build a conformant TP application. The ISP specifies not only how the TP and Commitment,

Concurrency and Recovery (CCR) base standards are used, but also how to construct a conformant

Application, Presentation and Session layer. OSI TP operations are characterized by four properties,

collectively known as the ACID properties, which guarantee that the results of transactions become visible

in a single operation, i.e., all elements of a transaction have the same outcome -- success or failure. The

Atomicity property states that either all operations are performed or none are performed; the Consistency

property states that the operations are performed accurately, correctly, and with validity; the isolation

property states that partial results of the operations are not externally accessible by operations not involved

in the transaction; and the Durability property states that the effects of the operations are not altered by

any sort of failure, i.e., disk crash after a transaction concludes. The ACID properties are maintained by

the CCR standard which is part of the TP ISP [ISO 1 04].

3.2.5.1 Definitions

1. Transaction Categories:

A. Application Supported transactions: This category of transaction allows two systems to communicate using a TP Dialogue. The ACID properties are the responsibility of the end user.

22
B. Provider Supported transactions: Tliis category of transactions allows two systenns to comnnunicate

using all TP functions. The ACID properties are the responsibility of the TP service provider.

2. Control Modes:

A. Shared Control: This mode does not explicitly control the exchange of messages. Message

exchange control is based solely on the internal semantics of the programs and they may use the

Dialogue at their discretion. The TP service provider does not care, nor is it aware of any

message collisions.

B. Polarized Control: This mode controls the exchange of messages between the two systems via a token. Under normal circumstances a system can use the Dialogue only if it has the token - TP

will enforce this. Under extraordinary circumstances, such as an abort, either system can use the

Dialogue.

3. Transaction Types:

A. Chained: A chained transaction is a series of related transactions, such as a batch of accounts

receivable transactions, which start and continue until the batch ends. The sequence of events

is that the first transaction builds the transaction tree, uses it, and either commits or rolls back; the

second uses the transaction tree and either commits or rolls back; and the third to the last transaction follow the same pattern. After the last transaction, the transaction tree is disbanded.

B. Unchained: An Unchained transaction establishes a transaction tree and establishes

communications with another program. When it is determined that a transaction should occur, that portion of the communication should be placed under the ACID properties and be recoverable by

OSI TP. The transaction starts and completes with either a commit or roll back. The transaction

tree may be or may not be disbanded. If it remains, it is ready for the next transaction.

C. None (Application Supported): This type of transaction occurs only under the application supported

category of transaction. It is an undefined relationship between two systems. How it starts and

ends is an end user concern.

4. Roles:

A. Initiator Transaction: In this role a system performs the task of the root node. It starts a

transaction and all participants in the transaction are its machines.

B. Responder Transaction: In this role a system may only be a leaf on a transaction tree. It responds

to a request to join a transaction and may not delegate any tasks to another system - it can only

respond. A large database server might be an example.

C. General Transaction: In this role a system may be a root, intermediate, or leaf node depending

on how it is being used at a specific point in time. This is the most robust and general purpose

product that could be procured, and can serve in any role.

3.2.5.2. OSI TP Procurement Consideration

This section specifies the OSI TP procurement categories, and the capabilities required of related software.

23
3.2.5.2.1 . OSl TP Procurement Categories

In order to provide interoperability among TP implementations, all IGOSS TP implementations must support

the following profiles defined by the TP ISP[ISO 104};

1. Polarized Application Supported Transactions [ISO 104(a)]

2. Unchained Provider Supported Transactions [ISO 1 04(b)], and

3. Chained Provider Supported Transactions [ISO 104(c)].

TP systems must support one of the following procurement categories.

"IG0SS1 TP (I)" "IG0SS1 TP (R)"

"IG0SS1 TP (G)"

where x = I (Initiator role only), R (Responder role only, or G (General role-both Initiator and

Responder).

Products that can operate in a general role are the most robust and should be procured wherever possible.

Products that can operate only in an Initiator or Responder role should be procured only when the

additional services will never be required and the cost savings make up for the loss of flexibility. Single

role products can also be procured when the underlying platform will not support a General role product.

A specific TP product may provide more functionality than the minimum required for the application. This

should be viewed as a plus because it offers greater flexibility and possibly lower life cycle costs as the

application changes to meet new user requirements.

OSl TP systems in all procurement categories are bound by the language and conditions contained in Part

1 5 of the Workshop Agreements.

Figure 3.2.5.2.1 shows the application subprofile for OSl TP implementations. The upper layer support

requirements for OSl TP are specified in Part 5, clause 13.6 of the Workshop Agreements.

T

Application

Layer

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

TP

ISO 10026-3 ACSE

ISO 8650

ocn User

ASE

ISO 8823

ISO 8327

;= Provider Supported Transactions

only

Figure 3.2.5.2.1. OSl TP Application Subprofile.

24
3.2.5.2.2. Transaction Processing Formats

This section specifies the format of certain Transaction Processing data elements.

3.2.5.2.2.1. Transaction Processing Service Unit (TPSU)-Tltle

The TPSU-Title format is the T61 -String. This is a 1..64 octet string.

3.2.5.2.2.2. Application Entity (AE)-Tltle

For the local generation of AE-Titles, IGOSS only requires support for AE-Title-Form-2 (Object id) which

is the form mandatory in the TP ISP [ISO 104]. An intermediate mode must also be able to propagate AETitle-Form-1 (directory form).

3.2.5.2.3. Related software

When procuring TP systems it is important to remember that related software, such as database

management systems, must be able to interoperate with them. These products must be able to interact

with such things as TP's two-phase commit, and recovery mechanisms.

Of special concem, is how these products transmit program aborts. The user program can take

responsibility for transmitting that information to the service provider or the vendor product can interact

directly with the TP product. The more integrated the related vendor product is with OSI TP, the better the

product is.

3.2.5.2.3.1. Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer Subproflles

This application subprofile requires the use of the Connection Oriented Transport Service. As such, it may

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subproflles to define a complete

procurement.

3.2.6 Remote Database Access

The Remote Database Access (RDA) standard provides protocols for establishing a remote connection

between a database client and a database server. The RDA standard addresses distributed database

processing in this client/server environment. RDA specifies a two-way transfer syntax and, when combined

with a database specialization, semantics for database operations.

The RDA standard is specified in two parts. Part 1 [ISO 62] defines the RDA Generic Model, Service, and

Protocol. Part 2 [ISO 63] defines the RDA Stmctured Query Language (SQL) Specialization. RDA

conformance can only be expressed in conjunction with a specific database language. The RDA SQL

Specialization allows the connection of RDA clients with RDA servers conforming to database language

SQL [ISO 68]. Both the client and the server must conform to the RDA SQL Specialization protocol;

however, only the server need provide an SQL conformant client database management system. The client can be an application that simply sends SQL statements to the server. SQL is thus far the only

specialization developed to complement the RDA Generic Model, Service and Protocol.

An RDA application may be implemented in conjunction with the Basic Application Context or the TP

Application Context. The Basic Application Context includes only the ACSE Application Service Element

and provides a one-phase commit protocol. The TP Application Context provides a two-phase commit

which allows updates at multiple remote sites in the same transaction. Initial RDA implementations will use

25
the Basic Application Context. Procurement categories for the TP Application Context will be specified in a later version of the IGOSS.

IGOSS specifies four procurement categories for RDA Basic Application Context implementations.

"IG0SS1 RDA BASIC IMMEDIATE EXECUTION" immediately executes the database operation.

"IG0SS1 RDA BASIC STORED EXECUTION" permits optimization by allowing database operations

to be defined and stored at the database server and to be executed one or more times during the

RDA dialogue possible with different parameters for each execution.

"IG0SS1 RDA BASIC STATUS" allows the status of a database operation to be queried.

"IG0SS1 RDA BASIC CANCEL" allows a database operation to be cancelled.

Only the first procurement category is required for IGOSS RDA profile conformance. The other categories

are supersets of the first category, but not supersets of each other. If the optional services required by

these categories are required, more than one procurement category must be selected. RDA

implementations in all categories are bound by the language and conditions contained in Part 1 9 of the

Workshop Agreements.

Figure 3.2.6 shows the application subprofile for RDA Implementations. The upper layer support

requirements for RDA are specified in Part 5, clause 13.8 of the Workshop Agreements.

t

Application

Layer

i

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

RDA

ISO 9579

ACSE

ISO 8650

ISO 8823

ISO 8327

Figure 3.2.6. RDA Basic Application Context Application Subprofile.

3.2.6.1 . Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer Subprofiles

This application subprofile requires the use of the connection oriented transport service. As such it may

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subprofiles to define a complete

procurement.

3.2.7 Directory Services

The Directory Service application provides access to a collection of information about objects of interest

to OSI users. The information is found in a Directory Information Base (sometimes called the Directory

information Tree, or DIT). The Directory Service is based on a standard produced in collaboration between

CCITT [CCITT 37-45] and ISO/IEC [ISO 70-78]. The first edition (1988) was extended to provide several

26
new features of functionality including standardized mechanisms for access control and replication (1993

edition). This specification is based entirely on the 1993 edition of the Directory Standard. The Directory

Service, provided by a potentially distributed system of Directory Service Agents (DSAs), is accessed by

invoking a functional component known as a Directory User Agent (DUA). When a DUA conveys a request

to a DSA and a DSA responds, the Directory Access Protocol (DAP) is used. If the DSA contacted by the

DUA cannot process the request, it may propagate or "chain" the request to another DSA which may

repeat the chaining operation, or the initial DSA may provide the DUA with a "referral" to another DSA more

likely to contain the information. The protocol used among DSAs to convey a service request or response

is known as the Directory System Protocol (DSP). When DSAs replicate information to enhance availability

and performance, two other protocols are used. The Directory Operational Binding Management Protocol

(DOP) can optionally be used to initialize or terminate a relationship between two DSAs regarding the

supply and consumption of replicated information and regarding the distribution of knowledge regarding the content of DSAs. The Directory Information Shadowing Protocol (DISP) is used to initially provide and to refresh replicated information. Figure 3.2.7 shows the application subprofile for Directory Service

implementations.

T

Application

Directory Access

Protocol

Directory Service

Protocol

Directory Operational

Binding Management

Protocol

Directory Information Shadowing Protocol

La^er ROSE

ISO 9072-2 and ACSE

ISO 8650

RTSE

ISO 9066-2

T

Presentation La^er

ISO 8823

t

Session

La^er

ISO 8327

Figure 3.2.7. Directory Service Application Subprofile.

3.2.7.1 Directory User Agent Procurement Categories

IGOSS procurement categories for DUAs use three dimensions to specify required functionality:

1. supported abstract operations;

2. supported types and levels of authentication; and

3. ability to use a Continuation Reference to progress an operation.

3.2.7.1.1 DUA: Supported Abstract Operations

The OSI Directory standard allows DUAs to support one, several, or all abstract operations defined for the

Directory Access Protocol (DAP). A complete list of the DAP abstract operations is given in Table 3.1. These operation names will be printed in bold type in this document.

27
For convenience, the IGOSS procurement classifications provide three "bundles" of DUA functionality as

follows.

1. A "Lookup" DUA supports the Read operation only.

2. A "Browse" DUA supports the Read, Compare, List, Search, and Abandon operations only.

3. An "Administrative" DUA supports all DAP abstract operations.

Table 3.1 Directory DAP Abstract Operations o Read o RemoveEntry

o Compare o ModlfyEntry

o List o ModlfyDN

o Search o Abandon

o AddEntry

Certain 1993 extensions to the abstract operations specified in Appendix 6 must also be supported.

3.2.7.1.2 DUA: Supported Types and Levels of Authentication

The OSI Directory standard accommodates two basic types of authentication - user authentication and

peer-entity authentication - and three security levels at which authentication may be performed: identityonly, simple, and strong. Authentication based on identity-only provides no real confidence that the identity

presented to the Directory is authentic. Authentication based on unprotected passwords is not sufficient to satisfy a requirement for simple authentication. Simple authentication is based on protected passwords

and may, depending on how the passwords are administered and protected, provide more confidence than

identity-only authentication. The standard allows a password to be either protected or unprotected from

disclosure as it is transmitted from the DUA to a DSA. A password is protected through the use of a

secure one-way hash function. An IGOSS conformant DUA shall, at a minimum, support identity-only and

simple authentication. These services are provided by Authentication Modes 0 and 1 as specified in Appendix 6 of this document.

Strong authentication is based on the use of digital signatures which, in turn, rely on the use of public key

cryptographic techniques. Such techniques require the generation and management of public and private

key material. Management of public key material involves the use of a Certification Authority (as described

in [CCITT 39]) which Is responsible for digitally signing certificates held in the Directory and used to verify

digital signatures. Management of the private key material involves maintaining its confidentiality as it is communicated between the source that generated the key and the user associated with the key.

Generation of the public and private key material involves ensuring that the keys have specific

mathematical qualities. The Certification Authority may be responsible for generating keys with the required

qualities. Certification Authorities also provide the basis for trusted paths (within the Directory Information

Tree (DIT)) of certification as described in [CCITT 39]. These trusted paths are used in verifying a digital

signature when the user community involves more than one Certification Authority. The details of procuring

Certificate Authority service are outside the scope of this specification; however, there are two choices for obtaining such a service: buy the service from a commercialCertificatipn Authority or procure the necessary

equipment and expertise to provide the service in-house.

26
The IGOSS provides three categories of strong authentication which are specified by Enhanced

Authentication Modes 2-4 in Appendix 6 of this document. These Enhanced Authentication Modes enable a DUA to transmit credentials which will allow a DUA to perform strong authentication at the time the DAP

connection is established or when an individual abstract operation is invoked as well as to perform strong

authentication based on credentials transmitted by the DSA.

The digital signature and secure one-way hash algorithms used in authentication services are beyond the

scope of this document. They will be specified in companion documents issued by each IGOSS

organization.

3.2.7.1.3 DUA: Support For Resolution of Continuation Reference

A DUA may receive a ContinuationReference as part of a List or Search result. A DUA might also receive a continuation reference when a DSA responds to an operation by issuing a referral to another DSA.

Some DUAs may be designed for use In environments where such references are never used, or a DUA

may be simplified such that it cannot pursue a reference. Alternatively, a DUA may be designed to be

capable of pursuing references. Another possibility is that a DUA product is designed to be configurable

such that the capability to pursue references may be controlled (either by the user or by the system

administrator). The following Reference Resolution Modes are used in the IGOSS to specify this dimension

of a DUA.

0 Reference Resolution Mode 0: Reference Resolution Mode 0 is used to specify a DUA that is not capable of using a continuation reference to redirect an operation to the DSA indicated in the

reference.

o Reference Resolution Mode 1 : Reference Resolution Mode 1 Is supported by a DUA that is capable of using a continuation reference to redirect an operation to the DSA indicated in the

reference. A DUA that supports this mode shall detect reference loops. A DUA that supports this mode shall be configurable to allow the user (or, alternatively, the system administrator) to disable

reference resolution.

3.2.7.1 .4 DUA Procurement Classes

An IQOSS procurement class, used to specify DUA product requirements, Is formed by specifying three

parameters as follows.

1. The first parameter specifies whether the DUA is Lookup, Browse, or Administrative.

2. The second parameter specifies the Enhanced Authentication Modes (beyond those mandated by

IGOSS) that must be supported by the DUA. This parameter is not required if strong authentication

services are not required. An IQOSS conformant DUA shall, at a minimum, support Authentication modes

0 and 1

.

3. The third parameter specifies which Reference Resolution Mode Is supported by the DUA.

Labels for DUA procurement classes are of the form:

"IG0SS1 DS 1993 DUA, Operatlon8(X), Enhanced Authentication Modes(Y), Reference Resolution

Mode(Z)"

29
where

X is "Lookup" or "Browse" or "Administrative" and

Y is a list of required Authentication Modes (may be omitted if no enhanced authentication modes are

required) other than modes 0 and 1 , and

Z specifies the required Reference Resolution Mo6e as either 0 or 1

.

3.2.7.2 Directory System Agent Procurement Categories

IGOSS procurement categories for DSA products are based on:

1 . DSA category; and

2. supported types and levels of authentication.

3.2.7.2.1 DSA Product Categories

The DSA product taxonomy has two basic categories. The first category, referred to as "solitary," is a DSA

designed to support a centralized DIT only and is unable to communicate with any other DSA. The second

category, referred to as "cooperative," is used to specify a bundle of functionality that allows a DSA to be

part of a community of DSAs which communicate in various ways to support a distributed DIT.

A solitary DSA never communicates with any other DSA and hence does not support DSP, DISP, DOP,

referrals, and knowledge references. When specifying a solitary DSA it is necessary to address

requirements for extensions to abstract operations, authentication, and access control.

A cooperative DSA is able to cooperate, either directly or indirectly, with other DSAs to provide Directory

services which are, to a large extent, independent of how the DIT is distributed. Cooperation can occur

directly when a DSA supports the DSP as both a responder and an initiator, and therefore supports the

chained mode of operation. Cooperation can occur indirectly when a DSA supports DAP only or when only

the responder role for DSP is supported. An indirectly-cooperative DSA generally retums referrals when

its local fragment of the DIT is insufficient to complete an operation result.

30
Table 3.2 DSA Categories

DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT CLASS TAXONOMIC LABEL

Solitary solitary

Cooperative

Capable of chaining

accessible by DSA only chalner - indirect access

accessible by DUA and DSA chainer - full access

Not capable of chaining

accessible by DUA only nonchainer - direct access

accessible by DSA only nonchainer - indirect access

accessible by DUA and DSA , ,, nonchainer - full access

There are, therefore, two subclasses of cooperative DSA: directly cooperative (referred to as a "chaining"

DSA), and indirectly cooperative (referred to as a "nonchaining" DSA). These subclasses, in turn, have

subclasses based on whether the DSA is accessible by a DUA only, a DSA only, or by both DUA and DSA.

A chaining DSA may or may not be capable of communicating with a DUA. A nonchaining DSA may

communicate with DUAs only or with DSAs only or may be capable of communicating with both. These

subclasses are summarized and labeled in Table 3.2.

3.2.7.2.2 DSA: Supported Types and Levels of Authentication

Authentication Modes associated with DUA - DSA interaction are compatible with the DUA Authentication

Modes discussed in Section 3.2.7.1 .2. For example, a DUA supporting Authentication Modes 0 and 1 can be used with a DSA that supports Authentication Modes 0 and 1 . Additional DSA Authenication Modes

are used to perform peer-entity authentication in a chained transaction. These Authentication Modes are

fully specified in Appendix 6 of this document. Appendix 6 also specifies additional conformance

requirements for IGOSS DSAs.

The digital signature and secure one-way hash algorithms used in authentication services are beyond the

scope of this document; they will be specified in companion documents issued by each IGOSS

organization.

3.2.7.2.3 Labels for DSA Procurement Classes

Labels for DSA procurement classes are of the form:

"IG0SS1 DS 1993 DSA, Category(X), Authentication Modes(Y)"

where

31
X is one of the following:

"solitary"

"chainer -- indirect access"

"chainer -- full access"

"nonchainer -- direct access"

"nonchainer - indirect access"

"nonchainer -- full access"

Y is a list of the Authentication Modes, required by the acquisition authority, subject to the following

constraints:

1 . For solitary DSAs, the list may the list may contain any combination of modes 0 through 5.

2. For "chainer -- indirect access" DSAs, the list may contain any combination of modes 3 through 7.

3. For "chainer -- full access" DSAs, the list may contain any combination of modes 0 through 7.

4. For "nonchainer -- indirect access" DSAs, the list may contain any combination of modes 3, 4, 5, and

7.

5. For "nonchainer -- direct access" and "nonchainer - full access" DSAs, the list may contain any

combination of modes 0, 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.

3.2.7.3 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer Subproflles

This application subprofile requires the use of the Connection Oriented Transport Service. As such, it may

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subproflles to define a complete

procurement.

3.2.8 l\/lanufacturlng l\/lessage Specification

The Manufacturing Message Specification (MMS) standard [ISO 64-65] provides for client/server message

based communications between programmable devices in a computer controlled environment. MMS must

be implemented as specified in Part 20 of the Worl<8hop Agreements.

There is an installed base of real Implementations based on the Draft International Standard (DIS). If bacl<ward compatibility with existing devices supporting the MMS DIS protocol Is necessary, the acquisition

authority should require implementations to support the agreements found in Part 20, Annex A of the

Workshop Agreements document

.

MMS defines messages useful for information interchange. It does not define a complete set of services

for remote device programming.

The MMS standard uses the terms client and server. The client Is the system that that requests provision

of a service. The server is the provider of the requested service. Server behaviors and allowable

responses are well defined in the MMS standard. Client and server roles are MMS service specific. A

device may support some services in a client role, other services in a server role, and still other services

in both the client and server roles.

32
The MMS standard defines 86 different messaging services. Implementations conforming to the MMS

standard must support five mandatory MMS services (Initiate, Conclude, Abort, Reject, and Identify).

Implementation support for any of the other MMS services is optional.

While it is unlil<ely that any device would support all of the MMS services, experience has shown that there are MMS service groupings that meet the current functional application needs of real manufacturing

devices. These useful MMS service groupings are called implementation classes.

Eight MMS implementation classes are specified in the following tables (Table 3.3 and Table 3.4). MMS

implementation classes are closely aligned with the correspondingly numbered MMS implementation

classes found in the MAP 3.0 specification. All IGOSS MMS implementations must support MMS

implementation class 0 plus one or more additional MMS implementation classes. These MMS

implementation classes equate to IGOSS procurement classes "IG0SS1 MMS 1-7." MMS implementation

class 0 is intended to be consistent with the proposed first MMS general application ISP.

The following conventions are used in the Implementation Class/Service Table (Table 3.3).

LETTER "Y"

In the Implementation Class/Service table, a "y" indicates that the implementation shall support both the

Server and Client Conformance requirements for these services.

LETTER "X"

In the Implementation Class/Service table, an "x" indicates that the service shall be included in the

Implementation Class. For services contained in an implementation class, the implementation shall support either all Client conformance requirements for the services or all Server conformance

requirements for the services.

LETTER "A" AND LETTER "B"

In the Implementation Class/Service table, wherever A and B are specified within a given Implementation

Class, the implementation is required to support either all A services or all B services in that Implementation Class. For services contained in an implementation class, the implementation shall support either all Client conformance requirements for the services or all Server conformance

requirements for the services.

33
SERVICE

Table 3.3 MMS Implementation Class/Service Mapping

IMPLEMENTATION CLASS

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 i Initiate 1 X Y Y Y X Y

Conclude Y Y Y Y X Y Y 1 Cancel 1 X X X X X X

Reject Y Y Y Y X Y Y

Abort Y Y Y Y X Y Y

Status X X X X X X

GetNameList X X X X X X

Identify X X X X X X

UnsolicitedStatus X X X 1 GetCapabilityList X X X X X X

InitiateDownloadSequence A X A A A A

DownloadSegment A X A A A A

TerminateDownloadSequence A X A A A A

InitiateUploadSequence A X A A A A

UploadSegment A X A A A A

TerminateUploadSequence A X A 1 A A A

RequestDomainDownload A A

RequestDomainUpload A A 1 LoadDomainContent B 1 B 1 B 1 B B

StoreDomainContent B B 1 B 1 B B

34
Table

SERVICE

3.3 MMS Implementation Class/Service Mapping (cont'd)

IMPLEMENTATION CLASS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DeleteDomain X X

GetDomainAttributes X X X X X

CreateProgramlnvocation X X X

Delete? rogramlnvocat ion X X X

Start X X X

Stop X X X X

Resume X X X X

Reset X X X 1 Kill X

GetProgramlnvocationAttributes X X X

Read X X X X X X X 1 Write X X X X X X X

InformationReport X X

GetVariableAccessAttributes X X X

TakeControl X X X X

RelinquishControl X X X X 1 Report SemaphoreStatus X X X X

35
Table 3.3 MMS Implementation Class/Service Mapping (confd)

SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION CLASS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 ReportPoolSemaphoreStatus X X X X

Report SemaphoreEntryStatus X X X X

Input X 1 X

Output X 1 1 X

GetEvent Condi tionAttributes X X X

ReportEvent Condi tionStatus X X X

GetAlarmSummary X X X

ReadJournal X X

Write Journal X X

Initialize Journal X X

Create Journal X X

Delete Journal X X

Report Journal Status X X 1 ObtainFile B B

The following conventions are used in the Implementation Class/Parameter Table (Table 3.4) which

indicates the parameter support required for each MMS implementation class.

Letter "X":

In the Implementation Class/Parameter table, an "X" indicates that the parameter shall be included in the

Implementation Class.

Letter "C" and Letter "D":

In the Implementation Class/Parameter table, wherever C and D are specified the implementation is required to support either the C or D parameter.

36
Table 3.4 MMS Implementation Class/Parameter

Parameter Implementation Class

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 STRl X X X

1 STR2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 NEST 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

1 VNAM X c X X X X X

1 VADR D

1 VALT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 VSCA 1 1 1 1 i II 1

1 TPY 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 3.2.8 shows the application subprofile for MMS implementations. The upper layer support

requirements for MMS are specified in Part 5, clause 13.5 of the Workshop Agreements.

T

Application

Layer

i

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

MMS

ISO 9506

ACSE

ISO 8650

ISO 8823

ISO 8327

Figure 3.2.8. MMS Application Subprofile.

3.2.8.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer Subproflies

This application subprofile requires the use of the Connection Oriented Transport Service. As such, It may

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subprofiles to define a complete

procurement.

37
3.2.9 Network Management

Network management is provided by a family of standards covering the areas of management

communications, management information, and systems management functions and services. Tfie single

procurement category of network management systems is "IG0SS1 NM." An IGOSS1 NM implementation

shall be conformant to all three areas as specified in Section 3.2.9.1 - 3.2.9.3. If management security is required, an implementation shall support one of the two peer-entity authentication modes as described in Section 3.2.9.4; inclusion of the security feature is optional.

When procuring a complete Network Management System, the acquisition authority should take additional

steps to ensure an adequate specification for the intended use.

3.2.9.1 Management Communications

To be conformant in the area of management communications, an implementation shall satisfy the

requirements for management communications as stated in Part 18, clause 8.3.1 of the Workshop

Agreements. These agreements relate to the Common Management Information Services (CMIS) [ISO 79]

and the Common Management Information Protocol (CMIP) [ISO 80]. Figure 3.2.9.2 shows the CMIP

application subprofile. Upper Layer support requirements for Network Management are specified in Part

5, clause 1 3.7 of the Workshop Agreements.

T

Application

Layer

i

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

CMIP

ISO 9596-1

ACSE

ISO 8650

ROSE

ISO 9072-2

ISO 8823

ISO 8327

Figure 3.2.9.2. Network Management Application Subprofile.

3.2.9.2 Management Information

To provide interoperability among network management systems, each system must have a common "view"

of management information. A system supporting the IGOSS NM application subprofile shall also support

OSI management information for its lower layer subprofiles (Transport and Network layers) (see sec. 3.4.4).

Where applicable, additional managed objects may be selected from the MO definitions in the following

documents:

0 DMI [ISO 81]

0 Annex A and B of Part 18 (NM lAs) of the Workshop Agreements [NIST 1] 0 IEEE 802.1 B LAN/MAN Management [IEEE 4] o IEEE 802.3 Repeater Management [IEEE 5] o ANSI X3T9.5 FDDI Station Management [ISO 99] o CCITT Generic Network Information Model [CCITT 48]

0 The Network Management Forum Management Information Library [MISC 9]

38
When specifying MOs for NM products, the acquisition authority must take care to specify: 1) from which

document the MOs are selected, since MO names need only be unique within a particular defining

document and may, therefore, be similar or identical to names of different objects in other documents; 2)

whether, and which, optional attributes and/or conditional package(s) are mandatory for the procurement;

and 3) at least one name binding for each of the MOs selected.

In those cases where applicable MOs cannot be found in the above listed documents for managing

particular network component(s) or system{s), additional, more appropriate managed objects may need to be defined. The definitions of such managed objects must satisfy the requirements for management

information as stated in Part 18, clause 8.3.3 of the Workshop Agreements. The techniques and templates

specified in [ISO 85] must be used in defining these MOs. When defining these MOs, two steps must be

taken to assure that the management information base is kept as lean and coherent as possible. First, the

management information documents listed above, plus those SMFs identified in Section 3.2.9.3 should be

thoroughly searched to assure that an appropriate MO has not already been defined for the desired

purpose. Then, these same documents should be searched for an already defined MO which, although

not entirely satisfactory, may be sufficiently close to the desired MO so that it could serve as a superior

object class from which this new object class could be derived. Elements of MOs (e.g., attributes or

notifications) should be handled in the same manner to prevent redundant definition of similar or identical management information elements. All MO definitions must have registered object identifiers and must be

publicly available.

3.2.9.3 System Management Functions and Services

To develop functions for the support of systems management, standards groups have partitioned systems

management activities into five Specific Management Functional Areas (SMFAs): configuration

management, fault management, performance management, security management, and accounting

management. Within each of these SMFAs, standards groups are developing standards for functions

(including requirements, models, and services) for the management of networks. Because of overlap

among requirements of the SMFAs, management functions developed to satisfy the needs of one SMFA

can often be used in support of other SMFAs. The functions are known as Systems Management

Functions (SMFs). Seven of these SMFs are included in this version of IGOSS: Object Management

Function (OMF) [ISO 86], State Management Function (STMF) [ISO 87], Attributes for Representing

Relationships (ARR) [ISO 88], Alarm Reporting Function (ARF) [ISO 89], Event Report Management

Function (ERMF) [ISO 90], Log Control Function (LCF) [ISO 91], and Security Alarm Reporting Function

(SARF) [ISO 92].

To be conformant in the area of systems management functions, an implementation shall satisfy the

requirements for systems management functions as stated in Part 18, clause 8.3.2 of the Workshop

Agreements.

As specified in Part 18, clause 8.3.2 of the Workshop Agreements when specifying systems management

functions (SMF) for NM products, the acquisition authority should take care to select the applicable SMF

categories. The SMF categories include:

- General Management Capabilities,

- Alarm Reporting and State Management Capabilities,

- Alarm Reporting Capabilities,

- General Event Report Management Capabilities, and

- General Log Control Capabilities.

39
The acquisition authority, when specifying the selected SIVIF categories shall also specify the selected

functional units and shall specify whether conformance to the agent role, the manager role, or both, is required.

3.2.9.4 Management Security

To accommodate current management security needs prior to standards reaching full maturity, there are two modes of authentication between which acquisition authorities may choose. Specification of security

requirements is optional. If required, the acquisition authority shall select only one of the two modes of authentication. It is strongly recommended that the acquisition authorities requiring the optional

authentication service specify Mode 2.

Both modes use simple credentials, as defined in the Directory Authentication standard [ISO 77], to authenticate an entity requesting the establishment of a management association. The simple credentials

structure comprises the following fields: username, password, optional time-stamp, and random number

fields. The time-stamp fields and random number fields may be used to protect against replay attacks.

Mode 1 : Mode 1 authentication requires use of the username and password fields of the simple

credentials. This method uses the ACSE Authentication Service/Protocol [ISO 93-94] which

defines a new functional unit (authentication) in which this information is conveyed in the protocol

data unit (PDU). An authenticating entity must compare the username and password against an

"authorized users" list to verify the user's identity. If the identity is confirmed, the association is accepted; otherwise, it is rejected. The username and password are the minimum amount of information that must be provided for Mode 1 authentication. The password is transmitted in the

clear, not encrypted in any way. Distribution methods for the usernames and passwords are dependent upon prior agreements between communicating peer entities, and are, therefore,

beyond the scope of this version of the IGOSS.

Mode 2: In addition to providing all aspects of Mode 1 authentication, Mode 2 authentication provides

additional security by using a hash function applied to the authentication information (i.e., the

password). Optional fields (e.g., the time-stamp or random number field) may be included in the

authentication information, to which the hash function is applied, to provide a greater measure of

security (i.e., by adding the time-stamp, the password will hash to a different value each time).

The recommended hash function to be used in Mode 2 authentication is the Secure Hash

Algorithm (SHA) as specified in [NIST 14]; additional hash functions may be specified in companion documents issued by individual IGOSS organizatons. The authenticating entity

receives the hashed output in the password field of the simple credentials structure, and then

processes the password "known" locally to correspond to the received username (along with the

other authentication information as the requesting entity ID) using the hash function to produce a test value. This test value and the password field are then checked for equality. If the user

identity is authenticated, the association is accepted; otherwise, it is rejected. The distribution of the actual password used as input for hashing is dependent upon prior agreements between

communicating peer entities, and is, therefore, not part of this specification.

Once authenticated on an association, an entity shall have access to all management information available

through that association. If an entity is not authenticated, it will not be granted an association.

3.2.9.4.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Lower Layer Subprofiles

This application subprofile requires the use of the Connection Oriented Transport Service. As such, it may

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subprofiles to define a complete

procurement.

40
3.2.9.5 Relationship of IGOSS Network Management to Other Efforts

The Open Management Roadmap, an international partnership of government and industry, vendors and

users, is an endeavor, Initiated and managed by the Network Management Forum (NMF), to coordinate

all the related network management activities of developing standards and defining specifications to produce interoperable network management products. Currently, the partnership includes: CCTA (UK

Government Center for Information Systems), European Community Testing Service for Network

Management (CTS3/NM), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Network Management

Forum (NMF), X/OPEN, Object Management Group (OMG), the Open Software Foundation (OSF),

Corporation for Open Systems (COS), Interoperability Technology Association for Information Processing

(INTAP), Standards Promotion and Application Group (SPAG), Ul (UNIX International), and the User

Advisory Council (UAC). Standards organizations and regional workshops, such as the OIW, are source

organizations in the Roadmap activity.

The Roadmap partnership agreed to a plan for defining a number of Open Management Interoperability

Points (OMNIPo/nte) which are snapshots of standards, specifications, and agreements for network

management. At each OMNIPoint, a set of specifications is to be published to which the vendor partners

agree to develop products and for which the user partners expect to purchase products.

The first OMNIPo/nf specification, released in October 1992, includes Version 1 of the Government Network

Management Profile (GNMP) [NIST 4] as an example procurement document whose requirements may be

met by 0P1 products. In other words, V.I GNMP is a subset of OMNIPolntl.

Network Management (NM) for IGOSS Is compatible with Version 1 of the GNMP except that the IGOSS

requires that all the management information defined by the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 for the OSI Transport, and

Network Layer Standards be supported, and all three NM areas as specified in Section 3.2.9.5 - 3.2.9.3

be supported. V.1 GNMP-conformant products must Implement one or more of these areas and

Implementation of the management information defined by the ISO JTC1/SC6 for the Transport and the

Network Layer Standards are optional.

Continued collaboration and participation In the Open Management Roadmap by IGOSS organizations is expected as the IGOSS and GNMP evolves and additional OMNIPoints are defined.

3.2.10 X-Wlndows

X-Windows Is a graphical user interface standard which enables a user to view and gain access to multiple

computer applications from a single window or multiple windows on a display screen. X-Windows Is based

on a client/server architecture which allows applications and resources to be distributed across a network.

The X-server is a software program that is resident on a user's display unit that acts as an intermediary

between the user and applications running on a local or remote system. The applications are referred to as X-cllents. These applications access the display unit by sending messages to the X-server which is then

able to perform the two dimensional drawing of lines, shapes and text. The X-server also maintains

complex data structures such as specific windows, cursors and fonts which can be referenced and utilized by applications. Input from the keyboard and/or mouse is collected by the X-server and passed to local and/or remote applications for processing.

X-wlndows products are based on a specification [MISC 7] which Is a de facto standard maintained by the

X Consortium. However, this specification does not provide for running X-windows over OSI-based

networks. To run X-windows over OSI, the mapping of X-windows onto a mOSI compliant stack defined

in Part 14, Annex D of the OIW Agreements is required. Interoperability is ensured for implementations

of X-wlndows over OSI following this mapping.

41
When procuring X-Windows clients and servers, the acquisition authority shall also require

a) an OSI stack providing mOSI (see sec. 3.2.13) compliant services (which provides an OSI transport

mechanism for X-Windows) as defined in Part 14, Annex D of the Workshop Agreements, and

b) a protocol such as that specified in the VT Generalized Telnet profile (See sec. 3.2.4) that will allow

remote clients to be initiated in an OSI environment.

The procurement categories that apply to the procurement of an X-Windows application operating over an OSi-based network is:

"IG0SS1 X-W (C)"

"IG0SS1 X-W (S)"

"IG0SS1 X-W (CS)"

where "C"= Client, "S"=^ Server and "CS"= both

Figure 3.2.10 shows the application subprofile for X-Windows OSI implementations.

T

Application

Layer

i

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

X-Windows

ACSE T

ISO 8650

mOSI

ISO 8823 Stack Subprofile

ISO 8327 i

Figure 3.2.10. X-Windows Application Subprofile.

3.2.10.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Upper Layer Subprofiles

This application subprofile requires the use of the minimal OSI (mOSI) upper layer service. As such it must

be combined with the mOSI upper layer service subprofiles to define a complete procurement.

3.2.11 Information Retrieval

The Information Retrieval (IR) application supports the open interconnection of information clients with

information servers by specifying an OSI application layer protocol for intersystem search and retrieval of information. IR addresses retrieval (but not update) of information and the IR protocol specifies basic

information retrieval operations, a common syntax for queries and the means to express their semantics,

and the means to allow the partner systems to share an understanding of the information retrieved.

The IR protocol provides access to information resorces without requiring servers to structure databases

similarty, or name fields within record structures similarly. It provides the means to register attribute set

definitions that express the semantics of information exchanged. The standard supplies a basic attribute set for search and retrieval of text-based information.

42
The protocol may be based on the international standard [ISO 66-67] or the national standard [ANSI 7]

which is a compatible superset of the international standard. The national standard has a proximity

searching feature plus access control and resource control services that have not yet been incorporated

into the international standard. A negotiation of the services to be provided, which occurs during the

initialization of the association, allows implementations conforming to the two standards to interoperate.

Functional profiles have been defined that correspond to both the international [ISO 69] and national [MISC

8] standards. The standards and functional profiles correspond to the following IGOSS procurement

categories for IR systems:

"IG0SS1 IR ISO (C)"

"IG0SS1 IR ISO (S)"

"IG0SS1 IR ISO (OS)"

"IG0SS1 IR ANSI (0)"

"IG0SS1 IR ANSI (S)"

"IG0SS1 IR ANSI (OS)"

where "C"= client, "S"= server and "CS"= both

Figure 3.2.11 shows the application subprofile for IR systems. The IR upper layer support requirements

include the kernel functional units of ACSE, the Presentation Layer and the Session Layer, plus the duplex

functional unit of the Session layer.

IR ISO

10163

or ANSI

Z39.50

ACSE

ISO 8650

ISO 8823

ISO 8327

Figure 3.2.1 1 . IR Application Subprofile.

3.2.11.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Upper Layer Subproflles

This application subprofile requires the use of the Connection Oriented Transport Service. As such, it may

be combined with either the COTS-CLNS or COTS(X)-CONS lower layer subproflles to define a complete

procurement.

T

Application

Layer

i

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

43
3.2.12 OSI Upper Layer Connectionless Service

No existing IGOSS applications require a full seven-layered OSI Connectionless service; how r, a number of non-IGOSS protocols widely available in industry currently use similar protocols and can

efficiently adapt to the use of OSI Upper Layer Connectionless protocols as an OSI transition mechanism.

The OSI Upper Layer Connectionless protocols support one-way, unacknowledged information exchange

without the reliability or overhead of the connection-oriented protocols. The Connectionless Upper Layer

protocols include Connectionless ACSE [ISO 56], Connectionless Presentation [ISO 57], and

Connectionless Session [ISO 58] and they operate over the Connectionless mode Transport protocol.

These protocols may be specified by procurement authorities in addition to the mandated protocols listed

in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 in order to support user applications. Connectionless ACSE shall be implemented

as specified in Part 5, clause 5.5 of the Workshop Agreements. The Connectionless Presentation protocol

shall be implemented as specified in Part 5, clause 8.7 of the Workshop Agreements. The Connectionless

Session protocol shall be implemented as specified in Part 5, clause 9.4 of the Workshop Agreements.

Figure 3.2.12 shows the protocols that provide the OSI Upper Layer Connectionless Application Subprofile.

Application User Specified

Applications

Layer Connectionless

ACSE

ISO 10035

Presentation

Layer ISO 9576

Session

Layer ISO 9548

Figure 3.2.12. Connectionless Upper Layers Subprofile.

3

« 44
3.2.12.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Upper Layer Subproflles

This application subprofile requires the use of the Connectionless Transport Service. As such it must be

combined with the CLTS-CLNS lower layer subprofile to define a complete procurement.

3.2.13 Minimal OSI (mOSI) Upper Layers Service

Many connection oriented OSI application protocols and virtually all non-OS I application protocols only

require a minimal subset of OSI upper layer functionality, i.e., associate/release (connect/disconnect) and

send/receive. Minimal OSI is a conformant subset of the ACSE protocol [ISO 23], Presentation Layer

protocol [ISO 21] and Session Layer protocol [ISO 15] that provides basic communication services for application protocols that do not need a full OSI upper layer stack. Minimal OSI stack implementations will interoperate with full stack upper layer implementations where only basic communications services are

required.

A mOSI compliant stack can be used to support a wide range of connection oriented network applications,

for example,

a) the majority of OSI applications which do not use the more complex OSI upper-layer functions (e.g.,

resynchronization), e.g., all the ROSE based protocols (unless they map to RTSE),

b) virtually all of the byte stream connection oriented application protocols such as the X-windows

protocol (see sec. 3.2.10), and

c) most of the so-called "legacy," non-OSI, application protocols.

The Minimal OSI ISP [ISO 112] is an ISP for the upper three layers of OSI which provides the required

basic subset of the OSI services. The IGOSS Minimal OSI subprofile (IG0SS1 mOSI) is defined in Part

5, Annex D of the Workshop Agreements. Appendix 5 of this document specifies an Application

Programming Interface that can be used to facilitate access to Minimal OSI services.

Figure 3.2.13 depicts the mOSI upper layers subprofile.

When used with non-OSI application protocols which were not designed to use the OSI presentation

context negotiation facilities, mOSI provides dummy parameters to effect a byte stream context so that the

migration of the non-OSI application protocol to use mOSI requires a minimum of change to the application

(note: the application's addressing must always be changed).

See Section 8 of Appendix 3 for additional information.

3.3 OSI ACCOMMODATION FOR EXCHANGE FORMATS

Exchange formats are standard based representations of infonmation entities (e.g., documents, graphics)

for purposes of exchange. Exchange formats are referenced in the IGOSS because the information that they describe can be transported by the OSI FTAM and MHS protocols either as the content of a file or as the body part of a message. The exchange formats listed in this section are examples of candidates

to use FTAM and MHS for this purpose. Exchange fomnats can also be transported by other mechanisms

which are outside the scope of the IGOSS.

45
The Office Document Architecture (ODA) exchange format [ISO 36-42, CCITT 17-24] specifies rules for describing the logical and layout structures of documents as well as rules for specifying character, raster, and geometric content of documents, thus, providing for the interchange of complex documents. The

interchanged documents may be in formatted form (i.e., for presentation such as printing, displaying), in processable form (i.e., for further processing such as editing) or in formatted processable form (i.e., for both

presentation and further processing).

Applications requiring Basic

Communications Services

ACSE

ISO 8650

CO - Presentation ISO 6823

CO - Session

ISO 8327

Figure 3.2.13. Minimal OSI (mOSI) Upper Layers Subprofile.

46
The Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM) exchange format [ISO 109] facilitates the transfer of picture

description information between different graphical software systems, different graphical devices and

different computer graphics installations. CGM specifies a file format suitable for the description, storage

and communication of picture description information in a device-independent manner.

The Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) exchange format [NIST 12] provides a coherent and

unambiguous syntax for describing whatever a user chooses to identify within a document. It is a metalanguage for describing the logical and content stnjcture of a document in a machine processable

syntax.

The Initial Graphic Exchange Specification (IGES) exchange format [ANSI 6] provides a neutral mechanism

for the interchange of (CAD-CAM) information. IGES does not cover the complete life-cycle of manufactured products. It addresses only the specification of products, not the manufacturing process

relationships.

The standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP) [ISO 105] is a family of related parts,

including an information modeling language (EXPRESS), which provides a basis for the exchange of any

data needed to support any stage in the life cycle of an engineered product.

For OSI product procurement purposes, the availability of a format exchange capability within MHS and

FTAM is essential to the productivity and usefulness of the OSI products. IGOSS compliant products shall provide the means for binary file exchange with a user defined format identification. The identification tag

will provide the means of identification for purposes of automated processing. MHS Bodypart 1 5 provides

for the transport of user defined formatted messages including industry standard formats such as documents and spreadsheets.

In addition, Part 8, Annex D.5 of the Workshop Agreements contains information on how to identify and

transport the ODA body part in an MHS message. Information on how to identify and transport additional

exchange formats as the body part of a message or the content of a file will be added to future versions

of the Workshop Agreements.

3.4 LOWER LAYER SUBPROFILES

This section defines the IGOSS lower layer subprofiles for services and protocols in the Transport and

Network layers. The acquisition authority must select at least one subprofile from among this set for the

provision of OSI lower layer services.

In selecting lower layer subprofiles, the acquisition authority must determine the OSI communication role(s) a system must support. For the provision of end system services IGOSS mandates support of the COTSCLNS subprofile and provides for the selection of additional, optional CLTS-CLNS and COTS(X)-CONS

lower layer services. For the support of intermediate system services IGOSS mandates support of the

CLNS-Relay subprofile.

The complete set of requirements of Transport and Network Layer protocols are a combination of the

selected lower layer subprofiles, service interfaces, and performance requirements. Particular attention

should be paid to the additional functional and Interface requirements upon Network Layer protocols (e.g.,

CLNP, ES-IS, IS-IS, X.25) dictated by the subnetwork subprofiles with which they are combined.

47
3.4.1 Transport Services

The selection of end system Transport services is dictated by the requirements of the applications selected

for a given system. Most IGOSS application subprofiles (see fig. 2.1) require the use of the Connection

Oriented Transport Service (COTS). The IGOSS also provides the option of supporting a Connectionless

Mode Transport Service (CLTS). Although no specific IGOSS applications require support of the CLTS,

IGOSS does provide, as an option, a generic Connectionless Upper Layers (CLUL) application subprofile.

The selection of protocol mechanisms to provide a chosen Transport service is dictated by the Network

services over which the Transport protocol will operate. The end system lower layer subprofiles provide

the appropriate combinations of Transport protocol mechanisms (classes) for each IGOSS Network service.

3.4.2 Network Services

The selection of network services Is dictated by the collection of subnetwork technologies that comprise a system's communication environment. Achieving OSI is best accomplished by using a single protocol

to perform the functions of end-to-end data communication within the Network Layer. To insure Network

Layer interoperability IGOSS mandates the provision of the Connectionless Mode Network Service (CLNS)

through the support of the Connectionless Mode Network Protocol (CLNP).

The IGOSS 1 COTS-CLNS and CLNS-Relay subprofiles define the mandated CLNS for end systems and

intermediate systems respectively. Several aspects about the effective procurement and deployment of CLNS inter-networks are not captured in the subprofile protocol requirements. In particular the design and

development of an effective CLNS routing and addressing plan is fundamental to the acquisition and

deployment of these profiles in real networks.

The acquisition authorities should consider the basic issues of CLNS routing and addressing in the

development of such plans. The issues are described in the following sources:

1 . IGOSS Section 4.

2. Workshop Agreements, Part 3, clauses 7 and 8.

3. RFC-1237 Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet [MISC 4]. 4. The IS-IS intra-domain routing protocol [ISO 49].

5. The IDRP Inter-domain Routing Protocol [ISO 102].

Additional CLNS requirements for individual systems (e.g., possibly based upon the logical or physical

topology of a network, or the organization of real equipment in to routing subdomains) may be specified as the result of developing a specific routing and addressing plan. The acquisition authority is responsible

for specification of any requirements that are in addition to those dictated in the IGOSS CLNS subprofiles.

The IGOSS also provides the additional option of supporting the Connection-Oriented Network Service

(CONS) for end systems that are directly attached to X.25 packet-switching services (e.g., X.25 WAN, ISDN

packet handler). Use of the CONS can, under certain circumstances, avoid the overhead associated with

CLNP and might permit interoperation with end systems that do not comply with IGOSS (i.e., do not support

the mandated CLNP). In addition, certain deployments of applications (e.g., MHS systems directly attached

to CCITT public messaging services) require the support of this Network Layer service.

3.4.3 Subnetwork Services

The IGOSS provides a wide variety of standard subnetworking technologies (e.g., LAN, WAN, ISDN,

Frame Relay, Point-to-Point leased lines) through the definition of Subnetwork Subprofiles. These

technologies exhibit physical, functional, performance, and cost differences that render some subprofiles

48
more appropriate than others for particular deployments. The acquisition authority must specify one, or more, subprofile, for each real subnetwork interface of a system.

3.4.4 Support of OSI Management Information

The acquisition authority may optionally require the support of standardized management information for the resources of the Network and Transport layers. In particular, when management information support

is selected an implementation of one of these subprofiles shall:

1. Conform, as a managed system, to Elements of Management Information Related to OSI Transport

Layer Standards [ISO 84].

2. Conform, as a managed system, to Elements of Management Information Related to OSI Network

Layer Standards [ISO 82].

3. Conform, as a managed system, to the managed object definitions contained in specific protocol

standards (e.g., IS-IS [ISO 83], IDRP [ISO 102]).

In each case the system shall conform to the protocol/service specific requirements for management

information that correspond to the communication resources selected in the subprofile. Selection of this minimal required management information can be indicated by appending the notation 7M" to any lower

layer subprofile procurement category. For example the procurement category "COTS-CLNS/M" describes

the mandatory end system lower layer subprofile that includes support for the elements of OSI management

information specified above.

Acquisition authorities may optionally require additional management information for other resources of these subprofiles (e.g., data link or subnetwork resources) and/or additional "fnanagement views" of the resources of the Transport and Network layers. Any such additional specification should follow the

requirements and guidance defined in the Management Information section of the Network Management

application subprofile.

All supported management information shall be accessible to the communication services and systems

management functions specified in the IG0SS1 Network- Management subprofile for this system.

3.4.5 COTS-CLNS Subprofile

Support of the COTS-CLNS subprofile depicted in Figure 3.4.5 is mandated for interoperability among all IGOSS systems and is the required means of providing a reliable end-to-end data communication.

49
IGOSS Application Subprofiles Requiring Connection-Oriented

Transport Service <

"Connection-oriented Transport Service (ISO 8072)

IGOSSl COTS-CLNS

Connection-oriented Transport Protocol Class 4 (ISO 8073, ISO 8073/Add2) < aSO 8348. ISO 8348/Addl

)

>

Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473)EStoIS

Routing Protocol aSO 9542)

f

•

J Provision cfSubnetwork Services «

, •

; LAN, PT-PT, X.2S WAN, ISDN, Frame Retoy •

Figure 3.4.5. COTS-CLNS Subprofile.

The mandatory support of a single transport protocol class (class 4) and a single means of subnetwork

inter-connection (use of the CLNP) assures interoperable data transfer between computer systems for a

variety of upper layer applications across a variety of subnetwork technologies.

The acquisition authority shall select support of the COTS-CLNS profile for all systems that will operate as OSI end systems. Other IGOSS end system lower layer subprofiles may be selected in addition to this subprofile. In particular, the acquisition authority may specify support of the COTS(X)-CONS, and/or CLTSCLNS end system lower layer subprofiles in addition to COTS-CLNS.

For the purposes of identification (e.g., in directory "protocol information" attributes) the COTS-CLNS

subprofile is assigned the object identifier:

{ISO/CCITT (2), DCC (840), GOV (101), IGOSS(I), IGOSSl COTS-CLNS (1)}

3.4.5.1 Provision of the Connection-Oriented Transport Service

This subprofile requires the provision of the Connection-Oriented Transport Service through the support

and use of Transport Protocol Class 4 [NIST 1; ISO 12,13].

50
3.4.5.1 .1 Transport Protocol Class 4

Transport Protocol Class 4 shall be provided according to Part 4, clause 5.1 of the Workshop Agreements,

with the following modifications and additions:

1. Replace item (f) of the Workshop Agreements Part 4, clause 5.1.2.1 with the following:

It is recommended that implementations not send user data in the Connect Request (CR) or Connect

Confirm (CC) TPDU. Any user data received in a CR or CC TPDU will be made available to the

Transport Service user.

2. Replace item (g) of the Workshop Agreements Part 4, clause 5.1.2.1 with the following:

It Is recommended that implementations not send user data in the DR TPDU. Any user data received

in a DR TPDU will be made available to the Transport Service user.

3. Add, as an addition item of the Workshop Agreements Part 4, clause 5.1.2.1, the following:

Transport expedited shall be provided as an optional service for the Transport Service user.

3.4.5.2 Provision of the Connectionless Mode Network Service

This subprofile requires the provision of the CLNS through the support and use of the Connectionless

Network Protocol (CLNP) [NIST 1; ISO 4,7] and End System to Intermediate System (ES-IS) Routing

Protocol [ISO 44].

3.4.5.2.1 Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP)

The CLNP shall be provided according to the Workshop Agreements Part 3, clause 5.1 with the following

modifications and additions:

1. Add to item (a) of Part 3, clause 5.1 Mandatory Functions, the following:

A System must provide a configuration mechanism to control the value to be assigned to the Lifetime

parameter for PDUs which it originates.

2. Replace Part 3, clause 5.1.3 Optional Functions of ISO 8473 item (g) with:

(g) All systems shall support the echo function as specified in ISO 8473/DAM6. All systems shall provide mechanisms through which the Echo request function may be invoked.

3.4.5.2.2 End System to Intermediate System Routing Protocol (ES-IS)

The ES-IS protocol shall be provided according to the Workshop Agreements part 3 clause 8.1.

3.4.5.2.3 Requirements for Combination with Specific Subnetwork Subproflles

The following define additional requirements upon the provision of the CLNS protocols appropriate for specific subnetwork subproflles. If the acquisition authority chooses to combine this subprofile with

subnetwork technologies not included within this specification, the authority must provide proper

specification of such interface requirements.

51
3.4.5.2.3.1 LANs

Part 3 clause 5.2 of the Workshop Agreements shall apply.

3.4.5.2.3.2 X.25WAN

Part 3 clause 5.3 of the Workshop Agreements shall apply.

3.4.5.2.3.3 ISDN

Part 3 clause 5.4 of the Workshop Agreements shall apply.

3.4.5.2.3.4 Frame Relay

When providing the CLNS over PVCs, the frame relay subnetwork shall be logically treated as a collection

of point-to-point links. The CLNS routing functions appropriate for operation on point-to-point links shall be operated.

The support of CLNS protocols over switched virtual circuit (SVC) frame relay services is for future study.

3.4.5.2.3.5 Pt-R

Part 3 clause 5.5 of the Workshop Agreements shall apply.

52
3.4.6 CLNS-Reiay (X) Subprofile

The CLNS-Relay (x) subprofile depicted in Figure 3.4.6 is mandated for all systems that will operate as OSI intermediate systems. (Section 3.4.6.1.3 contains the values of the (x) variant) Connectionless inter- networking, through the use of the CLNP, is the required means of providing OSI Network Layer relaying

regardless of the underlying subnetwork technologies. Note, however, that the inter-connection of distinct subnetworks to form the appearance of a single logical subnetwork may be performed by any technically

appropriate means (e.g., MAC bridges, X.75 gateways).

Natwork

Layar IGOSSl CLNS-ReIaT(X)

IS to IS Inter -doiTuiin • IS to IS Inlro-domain • Connec ticnloBS ESto IS Routing Protocol • Routing Protocol " Network Protocol Routing Protocol aSO 10747) (ISO 10589) ; (ISO 8473) (ISO 9542)

Data Link

tayar

Phyalcal

Layer

Provision ofSuhnet^'Ork Services

LAN, PT-PT, X2S WAN. ISDN. Frame Relay

Figure 3.4.6. CLNS-Relay (X) Subprofile.

The mandatory support of a single means of subnetwork inter-connection (use of the CLNP) assures

interoperable data transfer between computer systems for a variety of upper layer applications across a

variety of subnetwork technologies. The CLNS-Relay subprofile requires the support of the ES-IS and IS- IS routing protocols for the dynamic exchange of CLNS routing and configuration information.

For the purposes of identification (e.g., in directory "protocol information" attributes) the COTS-CLNS

subprofile is assigned the object identifier:

{ISO/CCITT (2), DCC (840), GOV (101), IGOSS(I), IGOSSl COTS-CLNS (1)}

3.4.6.1 Provision of the Connectionless Mode Network Service

This subprofile requires the support of the CLNS through the provision and use of the Connectionless

Network Protocol (CLNP) [NIST 1; ISO 4,7] End System to Intermediate System (ES-IS) Routing Protocol

[ISO 49], and Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-domain Routing Protocol (IS-IS) [ISO 83].

The provision of the Intermediate System to Intermediate System Interdomain Routing Protocol IDRP) [ISO

102] may be selected as an option.

3.4.6.1.1 Connectionless Networl< Protocol (CLNP)

The CLNP shall be provided according to the Workshop agreements Part 3 clause 5.1 with the following

modifications and additions:

53
1. Add to item (a) of part 3 clause 5.1 Mandatory Functions, tiie following:

A System must provide a configuration meciianism to control the value to be assigned to the Lifetime

parameter for PDUs which it originates.

2. Replace Part 3, clause 5.1.3 Optional Functions of ISO 8473 item (g) with:

(g) All system shall support the echo function as specified in ISO 8473/DAM6. All systems shall provide mechanisms through which the Echo request function may be invoked.

3.4.6.1 .2 End System to Intermediate System Routing Protocol (ES-IS)

The ES-IS protocol shall be provided according to the Workshop Agreements Part 3 clause 8.1.

3.4.6.1 .3 Intermediate System to Intermediate System Routing

This subprofile requires the support of dynamic intermediate system to intermediate system

routing protocols for the exchange of CLNS routing and configuration information. The

routing protocols supported and the required capabilities of those protocols are a function

of the role that an IS must be capable of operating in. The acquisition authority must

specify an IS's basic dynamic routing capabilities as one of:

(X=L1IS) - Level 1 Intra-domain IS. The intermediate system shall support Level 1 IS-IS capabilities.

(XrL2IS) - Level 2 Intra-domain IS. The intermediate system shall support Level 2 IS-IS capabilities in addition to the capabilities of a LI IS. A L2IS system supports the capability of configuring static inter-domain routing information.

(X=BIS) - Border Inter-domain IS. The intermediate system shall support IDRP in addition to the

capabilities of L2IS.

Note that the use of extensions to the IS-IS and/or IDRP protocols to provide "integrated routing" support

for additional protocol suites (e.g., RFC-1 195: Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Multi-Protocol

Environments) is not precluded by this profile.

While outside the scope of IGOSS, acquisition authorities should evaluate the requirements for such

extensions in the context of an overall multi-protocol routing strategy. This analysis may result in the

selection of additional optional IS-IS capabilities needed to support operation for protocols other than CLNP.

The following sections state the protocol specific requirements.

3.4.6.1.3.1 Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain Routing Protocol (IS-IS)

The IS-IS protocol shall be provided (X=L1 IS, L2IS, or BIS) according to the Workshop Agreements Part 3 clause 8.3.2.

Add, as an additional item of the Workshop Agreements Part 3, clause 8.3.2, the following:

(c) When operating on IEEE 802.5 (i.e., token ring) LANs the group addresses specified in [ISO 83]

clause 8.4.8 table 9 shall be used.

54
This subprofile places the following requirements on the provision of the IS- IS protocol:

1 . Authentication based upon passwords shall be supported.

2. For L2ISs, reachable address prefixes shall be supported. Reachable address prefixes shall be

capable of supporting all (i.e., explicit, IDI extraction and DSP extraction) next hop mapping types.

The acquisition authority shall specify any requirements for IS-IS capabilities that are

optional in the base standard (e.g., support of non-default routing metrics, support of equal cost path splitting).

3.4.6.1.4 Intermediate System to Intermediate System Inter-domain Routing Protocol (IDRP)

If selected (X=BIS), the IDRP protocol shall be provided according to the Workshop Agreements Part 3, clause 8.4.2. The acquisition authority shall select an implementation subset as defined in the Workshop

Agreements.

3.4.6.1.5 Requirements for Combination with Specific Subnetworit Subprofiles

The following define additional requirements upon the provision of the CLNS protocols appropriate for specific subnetwork subprofiles. If the acquisition authority chooses to combine this subprofile with

subnetwork technologies not included within this specification, the authority must provide proper

specification of such interface requirements.

3.4.6.1.5.1 LANs

Part 3 clause 5.2 of the Workshop Agreements shall apply.

3.4.6.1.5.2 X.25WAN

Part 3 clause 5.3 of the Workshop Agreements shall apply.

3.4.6.1.5.3 ISDN

Part 3 clause 5.4 of the Workshop Agreements shall apply.

3.4.6.1 .5.4 Frame Relay

When providing the CLNS over PVCs, the frame relay subnetwork shall be logically treated as a collection

of point-to-point links. The routing functions appropriate for operation on point-to-point links shall be

operated.

The support of CLNS protocols over switched virtual circuit (SVC) frame relay services is for future study.

3.4.6.1.5.5 Pt-R

Part 3 clause 5.5 of the Workshop agreements shall apply.

3.4.7 CLTS-CLNS Subprofile

The CLTS-CLNS subprofile depicted in Figure 3.4.7 is an optional end system lower layer subprofile for the provision of connectionless transport services.

55
IGOSS Application Subprofiles Requiring Connectionless Mode

Transport Service

Iitty«r

ouncerionlcss Mode Transport Service ITSQ 8072, ISO 8072/AddU

IGOSSl CLTS-CLNS

M*t:work Layas

Connectionless Mode Transport Protocol 1 aSO 8602)

1

_IISO 8348. ISO 8348/AddU >

Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473)ESto IS Routing Protocol (ISO 9542)

La.y«r

Provision of Subnetwork Services

t

LAN. PT-PT, X.2S WAN, ISDN, Frame Relay •

Figure 3.4.7. CLTS-CLNS Subprofile.

If required, the acquisition authority shall select support of the CLTS-CLNS subprofile in addition to the

mandated COTS-CLNS subprofile.

For the purposes of identification (e.g., in directory "protocol information" attributes) the CLTS-CLNS

subprofile is assigned the object identifier:

{ISO/CCITT (2), DCC (840), GOV (101), IGOSS(I), IGOSSl CLTS-CLNS (3)}

3.4.7.1 Provision of the Connectionless IVIode Transport Service

This subprofile requires the provision of the Connectionless Mode Transport Service through the support

and use of the Connectionless Transport Protocol (CLTP) [NIST 1; ISO 47].

3.4.7.1 .1 Connectioniess Transport Protocoi

The Connectionless Transport Protocol (CLTP) [NIST 1; ISO 47] shall be provided according to Part 4

clause 6.2 of the Workshop Agreements.

56
3.4.7.2 Provision of the Connectionless IVIode Network Service

This subprofile requires the provision of the CLNS through the support and use of the Connectionless

Network Protocol (CLNP) [NIST 1; ISO 4,7] and End System to Intermediate System (ES-IS) Routing

Protocol [ISO 44].

The dstailed CLNS requirements are specified in section 3.4.5.2 of the IGOSS.

3.4.7.2.1 Requirements for Combination with Specific Subnetwork Subprofllee

The requirements are specified in section 3.4.5.2.3 of the IGOSS,

3.4.8 COTS(X)-CONS Subprofile

The COTS{X)-CONS subprofile depicted in Figure 3.4.8 is an optional end system lower layer subprofile

for the provision of Connection Oriented Transport Sen/ices (COTS) over the Connection Oriented Network

Service (CONS). The acquisition authority must select the desired Transport Protocol dass combinations

(e.g., X=0, 0/2, 0/2/4) and specify whether the CONS ES-IS routing protocol is to be supported.

57
• IGOSS Application Subprofiles

• Requiring Connection-Oriented

( Transport Service

Traitaporl:

Hatvorfc Lay«r

Data Link

Lay«r

<"Connection-oriented Transport Service ^ (ISO 8072)

IGOSSl COTS(X)-CONS

Connecrion-oriented Transport Protocol Class 4, 2, and 0 (ISO 8073)

Connection-Oriented Network Service (ISO 8348)

Use of X.25 to Provide CONS

(ISO 8878)

ES to IS Routing Protocol (ISO 10030)

X.25 Packet Layer Protocol (ISO 8208)

Provision cf Subnetwork Services

XJt5 WAN, ISDN, Frame Retay, PT-PT

Figure 3.4.8. COTS{X)-CONS Subprofile.

58
The COTS-CONS subprofile may be selected for end systems that are directly attached to X.25 packetswitching services (e.g., X.25 WAN, ISDN packet handler). Use of the CONS can, under certain

circumstances, avoid the overhead associated with CLNP and might permit interoperation with end systems

that do not comply with IGOSS (i.e., do not support the mandated CLNP). In addition, certain deployments

of applications (e.g., MHS systems directly attached to CCITT public messaging services) require the

support of this subprofile.

If required, the acquisition authority shall select support of the COTS-CONS subprofile in addition to the

mandated COTS-CLNS profile.

For the purposes of identification (e.g., in directory "protocol information" attributes) the COTS-CONS

subprofile is assigned the object identifier:

{ISO/CCITT (2), DCC (840), GOV (101), IG0SS(1), IG0SS1 COTS-CONS (4)}

3.4.8.1 Provision of the Connection-Oriented Transport Service

This subprofile requires the provision of the COTS through the support and use of the Transport Protocol

[NIST 1; ISO 12,13]. The acquisition authority must select the Transport protocol class combinations

appropriate for specific applications of this subprofile. The allowed class combinations are: (X=0), (X=0,2),

and (X=0,2,4).

In operating the Transport Protocol over ISO 8202/X.25, the rules for Transport Protocol identification stated

in Part 4 clause 7 of the Workshop Agreements shall apply.

3.4.8.1 .1 Transport Protocol Class 4

If selected by the acquisition authority, Transport Protocol Class 4 shall be provided according to Section

3.4.5.1.1 of the IGOSS.

3.4.8.1 .2 Transport Protocol Class 2

If selected by the acquisition authority, Transport Protocol Class 2 shall be provided according to Part 4

clause 5.3 of the Workshop Agreements.

3.4.8.1.3 Transport Protocol Class 0

If selected by the acquisition authority, Transport Protocol Class 0 shall be provided according to Part 4

clause 5.2 of the Workshop Agreements.

3.4.8.2 Provision of the Connection-Oriented Network Service

This subprofile requires the provision of the CONS through the support and use of the ISO 8208 X.25

Packet Layer Protocol.

3.4.8.2.1 X.25 Packet Layer Protocol

The X.25 Packet Layer Protocol (PLP) [ISO 2] shall be provided according to part 3 clause 6.1.1 of the

Workshop agreements. The X.25 PLP shall provide DTE to DCE capabilites. If desired, the acqusition

authority may additionally require the support of DTE to DTE capabilities in the provision of the X.25 PLP.

59
3.4.8.2.2 CONS End System to Intermediate System Routing Protocoi (CONS ES-iS)

The acquisition authority may optionally require the support of the CONS ES-IS protocol in environments

in which ISO-10030 Subnetwork Address Resolution Entities (SNAREs) are to operate.

If selected, the CONS ES-IS protocol [ISO 100] shall be provided according to the Worl<shop Agreements

Part 3 clause 8.2.

The acquisition authority shall indicate whether the CONS ES-IS protocol shall support End System

functions, SNARE functions, or both. In each case, both the Configuration Subset and the Route

Redirection subset shall be provided.

3.4.8.2.3 Requirements for Specific Subnetwork Subproflles

The following define additional requirements upon the provision of the CONS appropriate for specific

subnetwork subprofiles. If the acquisition authority chooses to combine this subprofile with subnetwork

technologies not included within this specification, the authority must provide proper specification of such

interface requirements.

3.4.8.2.3.1 X.25WAN

There are no additional requirements.

3.4.8.2.3.2 ISDN

When providing CONS in an ISDN, the considerations for control of B and D channels shall be provided

by ISO 9574 [ISO 45] and implemented according to Part 3 clause 6.1.4 of the Workshop Agreements.

3.4.8.2.3.3 Pt-R

The acquisition authority should specifiy the support of DTE-DTE facilities in the X.25 PLP.

3.4.9 Subnetworl^ Subprofiles

This section defines the IGOSS subnetwork subprofiles. The acquisition authority should select one

subprofile from among this set for each real subnetwork interface of a system. These technologies exhibit

physical, functional, performance, and cost differences that render some subprofiles more appropriate than

others for particular uses.

In circumstances in which specific deployment requirements can not be met by any of the technologies

provided by the IGOSS 1 subnetwork subprofiles, other technologies may be used. In such cases the

acquisition authority must provide a proper subnetwork subprofile specification, including conformance

requirements, so as to ensure the procurement of an effective product; that is, a product that is capable

of supporting the selected IGOSS lower layer subprofiles and can interoperate with other IGOSS systems

to be attached to the subnetwork.

3.4.9.1 LAN(X,Y) Subprofiles

Figure 3.4.9.1 depicts the IGOSS subprofile choices for LAN interfaces. The acquisition authority must

select the basic LAN technology to be provided (X = CSMA/CD, FDDI, Token Ring, or Token Bus) and the

specific Physical Media Dependent (PMD) characteristics (Y = 10Base2, MMF-PMD, etc.) for each LAN

interface.

60
IGOSSI Lower Layer Stihprofites COTS-CLNS.

CLTS-CLNS.

CLNS-RelayPC)

CalM Llak

L>y*r IGOSSI LAN(X,Y)

Logical Link Control Type 1 (ISO 8802-2)

CSMA/CD

aSO 8802-3)

FDDI

(ISO 9314-2.-1)

Token Bus

(ISO 8802-4)

Token Ring

(ISO 8802-5)

Phyaloal 1 Lmy«rI0Broad36. lOBaseT

10Base2, IOBbkS

Single Mode Fiber Multi Mode Fiber (ISO 9314-3.-4)

10Mbps Broadband 10Mbps Fiber 5Mbps Fiber

4Mbps

1 6Mbp8

Figure 3.4.9.1. LAN Subnet Subprofile.

The interconnection of distinct l_ANs to form tlie appearance of a single logical subnetwork may be

accomplished by any technically appropriate means, such as MAC bridges. In order to ensure

interoperation of IGOSS LAN subprofiles, the acquisition authority is advised to cite appropriate standards

(e.g., ISO 10038 [ISO 103]) in the specification of such interconnection devices.

There may be situations in which LAN interfaces are required to support non-standard physical media.

While use of non-standard media is discouraged, such LAN interfaces are not excluded from IGOSS. In these situations, the acquisition authority must provide proper specification, including conformance

requirements, of the PMD characteristics of the interface.

3.4.9.1.1 Logical Link Control Services

All IGOSSI LAN(X,Y) subprofiles shall provide Logical Link Control services through the support and use

of the Logical Link Control Type 1 procedures [NIST 1; ISO 28] as specified in Part 2 clause 5.1 of the

Workshop Agreements. For each LAN interface the acquisition authority must select from the following

standard LAN technologies.

3.4.9.1.2 CSMA/CD LANs

If selected, CSMA/CD LAN interfaces shall be provided as specified in [ISO 29] and Part 2 clause 5.2 of the Workshop agreements. The acquisition authority shall specify the PMD characteristics of the interface

(Y = 10Broad36, lOBaseT, lOBaseF, 10Base2, or lOBaseS).

3.4.9.1.3 FDDI LANs

If selected, FDDI LAN interfaces shall be provided as specified in [ISO-95-99] and Part 2, clause 5.5 of the

Workshop Agreements. To define an effective FDDI procurement the acquisition authority must specify

61
the PMD characteristics and Station Management (SMT) requirements for the FDD! interface. The following

sections note issues that must be addressed in making this selection.

3.4.9.1.3.1 FDDI PMD Variants

FDDI PMD Standards for multimode (Y = MMF-PMD) and single mode (Y = SMF-PMD) are stable and

interoperable products are available. When the MMF-PMD is selected, part 2 clause 5.5.3 of the Workshop

Agreements shall apply.

Standards for several other PMD variants are now being developed. These include:

1 . Low Cost Fiber PMD (Y = LCF-PMD), which will be interoperable with PMD, however when LCF-PMD

is used in either port of a link, that link is limited to a distance of 500 m rather than 2 km.

2. Twisted Pair PMD (Y = TP-PMD), which will allow the use of either 150 Ohm shielded twisted pair or "category 5," unshielded, data grade, 100 Ohm twisted pair wire. Link distance is limited to 100 m.

3. SONET Physical Mapping (Y = SPM), which will allow FDDI links to be carried over SONET STS-3

channels.

At the present time there are several commercially available products which provide FDDI over shielded

or unshielded twisted pair media. These may not conform to the final TP-PMD standard, and products from

different vendors may not interoperate. Acquisition authorities that wish to procure products based upon

these emerging standards must take care to ensure the procurement of effective products.

3.4.9.1 .3.2 FDDI Station Management (SMT)

The evolution of FDDI SMT standards has recently stabilized. The ANSI X3T9 approved Version 7.2 of SMT [ANSI 12] is considered as a mature and stable candidate for adoption as the ISO SMT standard.

As the ISO SMT standard [ISO 99] matures to incorporate a stable SMT specification, acquisition

authorities should migrate to the use of the ISO standard as the primary reference specification. It should

be noted that some functional profiles have adopted an interim specification based on version 6.2 of the

ANSI SMT specification. Procurement authorities should specificly address requirements for SMT

interoperation with other, non-IGOSS compliant, SMT implementations.

Each FDDI interface shall support the following aspects of station management as defined in Version 7.2

of SMT.

1. Physical Connection Management (PCM), which is required to initialize FDDI connections, that is the

data link between two FDDI ports.

2. Configuration Management (CFM), which manages the internal configuration of an FDDI network

node.

3. Ring Management (RMT), which controls the initialization of FDDI rings and resolves duplicate

address problems which may occur.

4. Management Information Base (MIB), which defines the managed objects and attributes of FDDI.

5. Frame Based Management, which defines direct FDDI SMT to FDDI SMT management frames, that do not use layers above MAC.

62
Note that there is optional functionality inherent in PCM, CFM, RMT, and SMT that may eventually become

the subject of additional implementation agreements as trends in user's requirements and vendor's support

for station management mature.

Presently it is the acquisition authority's responsibility to evaluate, in the context of an overall strategy for LAN/system's management, any additional SMT requirements. Any such requirements should be reflected

in the selection of which of these options are to be supported by individual FDDI interfaces.

3.4.9.1.4 Token Ring LANs

If selected. Token Ring interfaces shall be provided as specified in [ISO 31] and Part 2 clause 5.4 of the

Workshop Agreements. The acquisition authority shall specify the PMD characteristics of the interface

(Y=4Mbit, or 16Mbit).

All token ring interfaces shall support the use of Group MAC Addressing in accordance with ISO 8802-5.

It is strongly recommended that Group addresses be used to support all OSI uses of multicast on token

ring networks. In some deployment scenarios it may be necessary to use Functional Addressing in order

to interoperate with existing installed systems that have limited, or no ability to support group addresses.

In general, for each token ring LAN, all ESs and ISs shall use exclusively either functional addresses or group addresses in the operation of a given OSI protocol (e.g., ES-IS, IS-IS). In instances where group

addresses must be used to interoperate with existing deployed systems, acquisition authorities should be

warned that the ability to interconnect such LANs with other IGOSS LANs through the use of MAC sublayer

bridges will be greatly complicated.

Acquisition authorities should consult the appropriate lower layer subprofiles for specific restrictions and

recommendations regarding these issues.

3.4.9.1.5 Token Bus LANs

If selected, Token Bus interfaces shall be provided as specified in [ISO 30] and part 2 clause 5.3 of the

Workshop Agreements. The acquisition authority shall specify the PMD characteristics of the interface (Y = 10Mbps Broadband, 5Mbps Carrierband, 5Mbps Fiber or 10Mbps Fiber).

3.4.9.2 X25-WAN Subprofile

Figure 3.4.9.2 depicts the subprofile applicable to the use of X.25 to interface with Wide Area Networi<

(WAN) packet-switching services. For subnetwori< interfaces to ISDN X.25 packet-switching services, see

the IG0SS1 ISDN-X25(X) subprofile in Section 3.4.9.3.1.

The elements of ISO 8208 applicable for use depend upon the OS! role in which the X.25 PLP (i.e., provision of the CONS, support of the CLNP) is used. This subprofile states the role independent of requirements for X.25 WAN interfaces. Additional role dependent requirements are specified in the IGOSS

Lower Layer subprofiles.

The X25-WAN subprofile requires that:

1 . The X.25 PLP [ISO 8] and LAPB shall be provided as specified in part 2 clause 6 of the Workshop

Agreements.

63
2. This subprofile does not mandate any specific phiysical interface standard. The acquisition authority

must specify the desired physical interface standards (protocol and connector) for each interface.

ICOSSl Lm'er L COTS-CLNS

CLNS-n COTS(X

% oyer Subprofiles CLTS-CLNS

*elay(X) )-CONS

Natnrork

IGOSSl X25-WAN

X.25 Packet Layer Protocol (ISO 8208)

Layac

HDLC LAPB

(ISO 7776)

Phyalaal

Layar e.g., X.21, X.21 bis, V.35, V.24

Figure 3.4.9.2. X25-WAN Subprofile.

64
3.4.9.3 ISDN Subproflles

This set of subprofiles specify the scenarios in which ISDN interfaces can be used to provide subnetwork

services to the IGOSS Lower Layers.

3.4.9.3.1 IG0SS1 ISDN-X25(X) Subproflles

Figure 3.4.9.3.1 depicts the subprofiles applicable to the use of an ISDN to provide X.25 packet-switching

services.

IGOSSl Lower Layer Subprofiles • COTS-CU^S. CLTS-CLNS J CLNS-Relay(X) COTS(X)-CONS '.

Matwork

Layar

IGOSSl ISDN-X2S(X) (X=D-Channel) (X=B-Channel)

ISDN User-Network Interface

Circuit mode: (T1.607)

Packet: (0.93 1/L451/T 1.608)

X.25 Packet Layer Protocol (ISO 8208. ISO 9574)X.25 Packet Layer Protocol (ISO 8208. ISO 9574)

Da^ Link

Layar

HDLC LAPD

(Q.921/L44I/T1.602) HDLC LAPD

(Q.921/L441/TI.602) HDLC LAPB(ISO 7776)

Ctq^aloal

Layax D Channel: (S. T. ID

Basic Rate(T1.601,T1.605) _^rimar^^ate^|L4082___

D Channel: (S. T. U)

Basic Rate (T1.601. T1.605)

B Channel: (S. T, U)

Basic Rate (Tl. 601, T 1.605) Primary Rate |T1.408|

Figure 3.4.9.3.1. ISDN X.25{X) Subprofile.

Integrated services digital networks (ISDN) support X.25 packet-switching services on the D channel (X=DChannel), sharing the channel with signaling data, and on the B channel (X=B-Channel). in either

scenario, call control signalling shall be provided as specified in the Workshop Agreements part 2 clause

7.2.5.

For each ISDN interface the acquisition authority must specify the common call control signalling (ISDNX25(X)) and one or both of the packet-switching capabilities.

ISDN provides the possibility of a Basic Rate Interface (BRI) (16 Kbps D-channel -i- 2 64 Kbps B-channels)

or a Primary Rate Interface (PRI) (64 Kbps D-channel 4- 23 64 Kbps B- channels). The acquisition

authority must specify whether BRI or PRI is required for each ISDN interface. The BRI service interface

65
might be available at the S, T, or U reference point. For ISDN physical layer access at the S, T, and U

reference points, Part 2 clauses 7.2.1 , 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 of the Workshop Agreements apply. The acquisition

authority must specify the physical interface required for each BRI.

The X.25 PLP for use on ISDN B and D channels shall be provided as specified in Part 2 clause 7.2.7 of the Workshop Agreements.

3.4.9.3.1.1 B-Channel Operation

When operation of X.25 over a B-Channel is selected, ISDN B-channel services can be used by an IGOSS

system in several ways:

1. circuit-switched access to a packet handler integral to an ISDN switch;

2. circuit-switched access to a packet handler separate from an ISDN switch;

3. circuit-switched access directly to another IGOSS end system, or IGOSS intermediate system;

4. dedicated circuit access to a packet handler integral to an ISDN switch;

5. dedicated circuit access to a packet handler separate from an ISDN switch, and

6. dedicated circuit access to another IGOSS end system or IGOSS intermediate system.

The acquisition authority must specify the B-channel access capabilities required for each ISDN interface

with ISDN B-channel services.

(Note that at the present time switched access to the B channel is available from most ISDN vendors, but

not in a standard fashion; thus, multi-vendor interoperability between terminal equipment and switching

equipment is not widely available today. Work underway in the North American ISDN User Forum (NIUF)

is expected to improve this situation in the future. As appropriate NIUF Agreements are developed, and

related ISDN FIPS are issued by NIST, IGOSS will be updated accordingly.)

For data link layer access on a B channel. Part 2 clause 7.2.6 of the Workshop Agreements applies.

3.4.9.3.1.2 D-Channel Operation

For data link layer access on the D channel. Part 2 clause 7.2.4 of the Workshop Agreements applies.

3.4.9.4 PVC-Frame-Relay

Figure 3.4.9.4 depicts the subprofile for data transfer and local management status and control information

between user equipment and frame relay permanent virtual circuit (PVC) network services. The protocols

for the access and provision of frame relay data transfer services shall be provided according to part 2

clause 8 of the Workshop Agreements. Additional requirements for signalling when frame relay services

are provided within the context of an ISDN are described in Section 3.4.9.3.

66
IGOSSl LmverL COTS-CLNS

CLNS-f COTS(X

jayer Subprofiles CLTS-CLNS

telay(X) )-CONS

IGOSSl PVC-Frame-RtUy N«t«ork 1

Multiprotocol Encapsulation

(Tl. 617 Annex F)

PVC Management

(T1.617 Annex D)

IiKy«r

Core Aspects of Core Aspects of Frame Protocol Frame Protocol (T1.618CA) (Tl .618 CA)

Phyaloal ' Lay«r , e.g.,T1.403. V.35.RS-422 e.g., T1.403. V.35.RS-422

G.703. G.704. X.21 G.703. G.704, X.21

Figure 3.4.9.4. PVC-Frame Relay Subprofile.

The encapsulation scheme for the transmission of OSI network layer protocols on frame relay subnetworks

is consistent with the procedures for protocol identification specified in part 3 clause 9 of the Workshop

Agreements. The definition of the encapsulation scheme, including the support of other uses (e.g.,

bridging, non-OSI protocols) of frame relay services, shall be as specified in Annex F of [ANSI 9].

3.4.9.5 Polnt-to-Point(X) Subprofile

Figure 3.4.9.5 depicts the IGOSS subprofile choices for interfaces that support CLNS protocols directly over

point-to-point data links. The acquisition authority must select the basic data link procedures (X = l_APB,

or PPP) and the specific physical interface standards to be provided.

67
IGOSSl Lmver Layer Suhprofiles COTS-CLNS. CLTS-CLNS

ClMS-Relay(X)

IGOSSfl PtPt(LAPB) IGOSSl PtP«(PPP) Data Link

liay«r

HDLC LAPB aSO 7776)

Phyaloal | Layar 1 e.g., X.21, X21 bis, V.35, RS-232

PPP + PPP OSI Network Layer

Control Protocol (RFCs: 1131. 1377)

HDLC

(ISO 3309, ISO 3309/Adl

)

e.g.. X21,X.21 bis, V.35, RS-232

Figure 3.4.9.5. PtPt Subprofile.

These subprofiles do not mandate any specific physical interface standard. The acquisition authority must

specify the desired physical interface standards (protocol and connector) for each interface.

3.4.9.5.1 LAPB Subprofile

The Point-to-Point(LAPB) subprofile requires that:

1. The LAPB protocol shall be provided as specified in clauses 4 and 5 of ISO 8880-3 [ISO 101], as

appropriate.

2. The acquisition authority shall specify the desired physical interface standards (protocol and

connector) for each interface.

3.4.9.5.2 PPP Subprofile

The Point-to-Point(PPP) subprofile requires that:

1. The Point-to-Point Protocol shall be provided as specified in RFC 1331 [MISC 3]. The PPP OSI

Network Layer Control Protocol shall be provided as specified in RFC 1377 [M\SC 6].

2. The acquisition authority shall specify the desired physical interface standards (protocol and

connector) for each interface.

68
4. IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF OSI OBJECTS

In order to effectively operate and administer IGOSS based systems, network addresses, MHS O/R names

and other OSI objects must be uniquely identified. This section specifies the major OSI objects that must

be uniquely identified and the registration mechanisms that are in effect or under development to insure

unique identification.

4.1 NETWORK LAYER ADDRESSES

This section discusses the administrative and technical issues related to the assignment of Network Layer

addresses. Although detailed specification of actual addressing schemes and administrative procedures

are beyond the scope of this document, references are provided to other relevant sources of this information.

4.1.1 Fundamentals of NSAP Address Structure and Administration

Network Service Access Point (NSAP) addresses specify the points where the communication capability

of the Network Layer (i.e., the Network Service) is made available to its users. In effect, they address the

direct users of the Network Service, normally transport entities. NSAP addresses are encoded into Network

Protocol Address Information (NPAI) and conveyed in the appropriate protocol data units (PDUs) between

protocol entities providing the Network Service.

The basic principles of Network Layer addressing are defined in Addendum 2 to the Network service

definition [ISO 5]. The first three levels of the NSAP addressing domain are standardized internationally

and result in the NSAP address structure in Figure 4.1.1. The Initial Domain Part (IDP) of the address

consists of two parts, the Authority and Format Identifier (AFI) and the Initial Domain Identifier (IDI). The

AFI specifies the format of the IDI, the authority that is responsible for allocating IDI values, and the syntax

used to represent the Domain Specific Part (DSP). The IDI is interpreted according to the value of the AFI

and its value identifies the authority responsible for the structure and assignment of DSP values. The DSP

is allocated and assigned by the authority specified by the IDP part.

ISO/CCITT NSAP ADDRESS

IDP

AFI IDI DSP

Figure 4.1.1. NSAP Address Structure.

4.1.2 Technical Requirements on NSAP Address Allocation

The design and development of an effective Network layer routing and addressing plan is fundamental

to the effective acquisition and deployment of OSI Network services. Such plans guide the

determination of which addressing authority(ies) are used to acquire NSAP address assignments and

how the DSP portion of these addresses are structured and assigned.

The basic requirements for IGOSS NSAP addresses are specified in Part 3, clause 7 of the Workshop

Agreements. In the case of the provision of the CLNS, there are numerous issues surrounding the

correlation between NSAP address assignment and the correct and efficient operation of the

supporting routing and data protocols that must be considered. The basic issues that need to be

69
considered in the development of CLNS routing and addressing plans are described in the following sources:

1 . Workshop Agreements, Part 3, clauses 7 and 8.

2. The IS-IS intra-domain routing protocol [ISO 49] Annex B and section 7.1.

3. The IDRP inter-domain routing protocol [ISO 102] sections 8.1 and 8.2.

4. RFC-1237 Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet [MISC 4].

4.1.3 Common IGOSS NSAP Address Authorities and DSP Formats

While technically IGOSS systems may be assigned any NSAP address that meets the requirements

stated in section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, there are small number of defined addressing schemes from which

the majority of IGOSS systems will probably take NSAP Address assignments. The following table

summarizes these schemes, the addressing authority, and the reference document that defines the

scheme:

Table 4.1 IGOSS NSAP Addressing Schemes

Address Scheme API IDI Addressing Authority Reference Document

"Data Country Code USA' 39 840 American National Standards Institute [ANSI 11]

'Data Country Cods Canada" 39 124 Canadian Standards Association [CSA 1]

"ICD 5" 47 5 US National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST 16]

There is a commonly used DSP structure that is supported by each of these addressing schemes. While

some of these schemes may allow other DSP structures, the common structure is presented as an

example. Acquisition Authorities should consult these schemes and other applicable profile documents for more information on addressing schemes.

Figure 4.1 .3 depicts a DSP structure supported by each of the addressing schemes above. The following

is a general description of that structure. Consult the specific reference documents for exact descriptions.

IDP

API IDI DPI Add. Author. Reserved Routing Domain Area System NSel

1 2 1 3 2 2 2 6 1

Figure 4.1.3. Common DSP Structure.

The DSP Format Identifier (DFI) specifies the structure, semantics and administration requirements

associated with the remainder of the DSP. This field provides for graceful support of multiple DSP

structures should the need arise. The DFI value 80 hexadecimal identifies the DSP format described

in this section.

The Address Authority field identifies the entity that is responsible for the allocation and assignment

of the remaining portion of the DSP.

The Reserved field shall have a value of zero.

70
The Routing Domain field identifies a unique routing domain as defined in the IS-IS intra-domain

routing protocol [ISO 49]. A routing domain is a coliection of ESs and ISs that, together, operate

common routing protocols and are managed by a single administration.

The Area field identifies a unique subdomain of a routing domain. An area is defined in the IS-IS intra- domain routing protocol [ISO 49] as a routing subdomain which maintains detailed routing information

about its own internal composition, and also maintains routing information which allows it to reach

other routing subdomains.

The System field identifies a unique system (ES or IS) within an Area. The format, value, structure and meaning of this field is left to the discretion of its administrator.

The NSAP Selector field identifies a direct user of the Network Layer service, usually a Transport

entity. (The NSAP Selector may also identify other direct users of the Network Service if required by

the acquisition authority.) The IGOSS allows a system administrator to configure NSAP Selector-toTransport entity mappings because, for example, several transport entities may co-exist in some

systems.

4.2 MHS ORIGINATOR/RECIPIENT NAMES

The MHS Recommendations [CCITT 2-9, CCITT 28-36] identify a user to a Message Transfer Agent

by means of a parameter called the Originator/Recipient Name (0/R Name). The MHS 0/R Name is composed of a Directory Distinguished Name or MHS 0/R address or both. 0/R addresses may be

of the form: Mnemonic, Numeric, Terminal or Postal. This specification mandates support for only

the Mnemonic form as summarized in Table 42. Support for other 0/R address forms is optional. The

mnemonic address attributes which must be capable of being generated by all implementations are

the country name, the administration name, private domain name, organization name, organizational

units, personal name, and a list of domain-defined attributes. The value of single space should be

supported for the ADMD name component of the 0/R address. The private domain name attribute

must also be supported by all implementations, and be included when the originator and/or the

recipients are located within private domains. This information is summarized in Table 4.2.

71
Table 4.2 Required 0/R Address Attributes

Attribute Maximum Character Length

Country 3

ADMD 16

PRMD 16

Organization name 64

Sequence of org. units 32 each

Personal name 64

Surname 40

Given name 16

Initials 5

Generation Qualifier 3

Common name 64 (1988 MHS only)

Domain Defined Attribute

List 8

Type 128

Value

Messaging systems claiming conformance to the IGOSS shall be capable of routing on the

administration name, private domain name, organization name and organizational unit attributes taken

in their hierarchical order. They shall also be able to perform message delivery based on all attributes

listed in Table 4.2 except in the case of DDA's which appear in MHS protocol as a constructed item

"DDA.< rype>". They shall be tolerant of DDA's whose <Type> is unknown when acting as the

receiving system or perform routing on it when the <Type> is understood. If the <rype>is understood,

then delivery shall be performed, else a non-delivery report shall be generated. All systems shall be

able to origniate messages to recipients whose 0/R address contains the DDA.< rype> construct even

though the <Type> is not understood by the originating messaging system.

72
4.3 OTHER OSI OBJECTS

All OSI applications have requirements for unique identifiers. The FTAM application must identify

document types, the VT application must distinguish VT profiles and OSI Network Management

requires that the managed objects be uniquely Identified. An example list of other OSI objects Is found

in Part 6, Clause 3 of the Workshop Agreements. Moreover, certain users may have additional

requirements. For example, users that employ MHS to transfer non-standard body parts or FTAM to transfer non-standard document types may want to register those body parts or document types.

4.4 REGISTRATION OF OSI OBJECTS

Authority to register network addresses, MHS addresses and other OSI objects is derived from

procedural documents issued by the International standards committees [ISO 106, CCITT 49]. The

registration authority that is established in these documents is hierarchical in nature - a tree structure. Pertinent components of the structure are shown in Figure 4.4. The identifier of an OSI object is described In terms of a unique path from the root of the tree to a leaf node. The Identifier thus

includes identifiers of all authorities responsible for the registration of the OSI object.

At level one of the tree, [ISO 106, CCITT 49] established branches of registration authority. They are CCITT{0), IS0(1) and joint IS0-CCITT(2). [ISO 107] specifies country code identifiers which can be

assigned by the member body registration authority in the ISO arc and under the country registration

in the joint ISO-CCITT arc. The identifier "840" has been assigned to the United States, and "124"

has been assigned to Canada. [ISO 1 08] gives the procedures for delegating registration authority

to identified organizations that are not ISO member bodies.

The International Code Designator component of the Network address may be assigned under the ISO

arc by an organization that has been delegated registration authority according to [ISO 108]. ICD

assignments have been made to NIST (ICD 5) and to the OSE Implementors Workshop (ICD 14)

under this authority. The General Services Administration has the operational responsibility of assigning the Address Authority component of the Network address to U.S. government and non- government organizations under the authority delegated to NIST under ICD 5.

An MHS 0/R address is encoded as a set of hierarchically ordered attributes (see Section 4.2). The

attributes include Country, Administration Domain, Private Domain and Organization Name. An MHS

0/R Name may have an Administration Domain attribute, a Private Management Domain attribute, or

both. An Address Registration Authority is needed to register certain components of an MHS 0/R

Name. ANSI has established a MHS management domain (MD) name registration service which was

mutually agreed between ANSI and the Department of State. Any MHS management domain name

value registered directly with ANSI is understood to be nationally unique when used in conjunction with

country = US. As such, ANSI is the U.S. national MHS MD name registration authority. All values

registered in this registry are registered subordinate to the US sub-arc under the joint ISO-CCITT arc as illustrated in Figure 4.4. All ADMD name values shall be registered directly with ANSI, PRMD name

values may be, too. Private Domains and Administration Domains will assign unique organization

names to users of their services and delegate to the organization indicated by the organization names,

the authority to assign organizational unit and personal names.

Any MD name registered directly with ANSI may establish itself as a registration subauthority. For

example, GSA offers MD name registration services under the Registration Authority name "GOV".

However, to assure its uniqueness in MHS, the identity of the authority (s) between ANSI and the

registrant, must also be included in the MD name value. This shall be achieved by using the

73
construction syntax specified in the ANSI registration procedure guidelines. For example, in the case

of GSA, being a sub-authority registrar, the requested MD name "AAA" would appear as "GOV+AAA"

when used as a PRMD name value in MHS O/R address.

Other OSI objects (i.e., those Identified in Part 6 of the Workshop Agreements) are assigned under

ICD 14. Under this authority, the OSE Implementors' Workshop has delegated authority to each SIG

to assign object identifiers to objects of interest to that SIG. Consult Part 6 of the Workshop

Agreements for additional information.

Detailed registration procedures will be specified in companion documents issued by each IGOSS

organization.

Level 0 (Root)

Level 1 CCITT(O)

Level 2

CCTTT XMO

ISO/IEC 9834-1

Member

Body (2)

Identified Organization (3)

Joint ISO-CCITT (2)

I Country (16)

Level 3 Canada (124) USA (840) OIW (14) US Government (5) USA (840) Canada (124)

Eievel 4 State (3) MHS-MD (2) Organization (1)

Figure 4.4. Registration Authority Hierarchy.

74
5. PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Procuring information systems for deployment in multi-vendor computer networks involves a complex

set of issues: specification of protocol requirements, wording of solicitations, determination of conformance against the specification and of interoperability among conformant products, assessment

of the function and performance of products against the solicitation requirements, extension of standards-based products to meet user requirements when no standard solution is available, and

more. While the IGOSS addresses solely the specification of protocol requirements, additional

assistance is available to the acquisition authority, both now and in the future. The fol owing sections

refer the acquisition authority to appropriate sources of such assistance.

5.1 USER'S GUIDE

Acquisition Authorities should not use the IGOSS without understanding the broad issues surrounding

the specification; and, of course, the issues are different for executives, managers, technical

professionals, and procurement officials. A guide discussing the relevant issues for each category of user, and in a language that each type of user can understand, is planned by the IGOSS partners.

Until this IGOSS User's Guide is available, acquisition authorities can consult an existing user's guide

published by one of the IGOSS partners [NIST 7].

5.2 EVALUATION GUIDELINES

The IGOSS mandates for each protocol a minimum set of functions to meet general user

requirements. In many instances, additional functions might be supported within the Workshop

Agreements and/or the protocol standards. The acquisition authority must determine and specify such

additional functions that are required within an acquisition. The acquisition authority is responsible for determining that the vendor products proposed meet any and all functional requirements.

IGOSS does not cite performance criteria. Note that protocol definitions include quality of service

parameters and other tunable functions. The acquisition authority must determine and specify those

performance-related features that are desired to be under user or application process control and

those desired to be under system operator control. The acquisition authority may also wish to specify

benchmarking criteria as evidence of satisfying specific performance requirements.

One of the IGOSS partners has issued "Guidelines for the Evaluation of Message Handling Systems

Implementations" [NIST 9], "Guidelines for the Evaluation of File Transfer, Access, and Management

Implementations" [NIST 10], and "Guidelines for the Evaluation of Virtual Terminal Implementations"

[NIST 1 5] to assist users and acquisition authorities in evaluating the degree to which implementations

of those applications meet the specific performance and functional requirements of a procurement.

Further guidelines are planned.

5.3 TESTING

Use of a specification based on standards, while bringing many benefits, creates a new problem for acquisition authorities: how can vendor claims of conformance be verified? In the case of IGOSS,

because it involves standards for communication between systems, an additional problem faces the

acquisition authority: how can interoperability among conforming products be assured? The IGOSS

75
partners accept the responsibility for providing tools to enable the acquisition authority to answer these

questions as efficiently and cheaply as possible.

The IGOSS partners will develop a testing program leading to the public availability of lists and

databases of conforming and interoperable products. The resulting information will be freely available

to all users or potential users of the IGOSS or products meant to conform to the IGOSS. In the

interim, one of the IGOSS partners has already laid a significant foundation for such a testing program.

Prospective users of the IGOSS specification, as well as users of the existing profiles: MAP, TOP,

UCA, and GOSIP, can make use of the conformance and interoperability information available through

the GOSIP Testing Program [NIST 8]. The IGOSS partners envision that testing requirements will be

driven largely by user demand; therefore, to increase the amount and value of testing information

available, users are encouraged to require prospective vendors to demonstrate conformance and

interoperability by following the procedures already established by NIST, and to indicate to prospective

vendors, an intent to adopt the procedures that evolve as the IGOSS partners establish an IGOSS

Testing Program.

5.4 CHARACTER SET SUPPORT

In OSI based products, each Application layer service provides support for specific ISO standard

character sets. Part 21 of the Workshop Agreements specifies the character set support requirements

for each application.

Currently IA5 Text commonly known as ASCII is commonly supported by all major vendors and is the

character set of choice for application compatibility. In addition, many OSI applications also support

other character sets such as ISO 646, 6937, 8859 and CCITT character sets such as T.61 and T.71.

Acquisition authorities should specify their requirements for any character set support that is beyond

that mandated by the Workshop Agreements.

Currently, character set support is based on harmonized Workshop Agreements and ISO JTC1 SGFS.

In the future, it is expected that applications will support worldwide languages using the ISO 10646

character set standard. The IS 10646 standard is aligned to industry use of the UNICODE character

representation which covers all language and alphabet representations worldwide.

5.5 VENDOR ENHANCEMENTS

It is expected that most vendors will update their products, for example, from a Draft International

Standard version to an International Standard version, as implementation specifications are completed

in the Workshop Agreements. Also, some vendors may provide additional functionality.

Implementations that go beyond the functional units stated in Section 3 must be implemented

according to the Workshop Agreements and must intenwork with implementations that strictly comply

with Section 3. Requests For Proposals should encourage vendor enhancements, where required to meet user needs, as a preferred alternative to using the required, but missing, functions as a

justification for procuring redundant protocols.

76
REFERENCES

American National Standards Institute

1. Integrated Services Digital Network - Basic Access Interface for Use on Metallic Loops for Application on the Network Side of the NT-Layer 1 Specification, ANS T1 .601-1988.

2. Integrated Services Digital Network - Basic Access Interface at S and T Reference Points - Layer

1 Specification, ANS T1.605-1 988.

3. Carrier to Customer Installation - DS1 Metallic Interface, ANSI T1. 403-1989.

4. American National Standard Information Retrieval Application - Service Definition and Protocol

Specification for Open Systems Interconnection, ANSI Z39.50-1 992.

5. Information Processing Systems - Computer graphics - Metafile for the storage and transfer of

picture description information, ANSI/ISO 8632.

6. American National Standard - Digital Representation for Communication of Product Definition

Data, ANSI Y14.26M-1989.

7. American National Standard - Information Retrieval - Application Service Definition and Protocol

Specification for Open Systems Interconnection, ANSI Z39.50.

8. American National Standard for Information Systems - Computer Graphics - X Window System

Data Stream Definition, ANSI X3.196-199X.

9. ANS T1 .61 7 - DSS1 - Core Aspects of Frame Protocol for Use with Frame Relay Bearer Service,

1991

10. ANS T1.618 - DSS1 - Signaling Specification for Frame Relay Bearer Service, 1991

11. ANS X3.216 - Structure and Semantics of the Domain Specific Part (DSP) of the OSI Network

Service Access Point (NSAP) Address.

1 2. ANS X3.229 - 199X - Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) Station Management (SMT). (ANSI

X3T9 approved SMT Version 7.2)

Canadian Standards Association

1 . CSA Z243.1 10.2 Canadian OSI Registration Procedures and Guidelines - Part 2 -Guidelines for Network Service Access Point Addresses for the Data Country Code Format.

Electronic Industries Association

Interface between Data Terminal Equipment and Data Communication Equipment Employing Serial

Binary Data Interchange, EIA-232C.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

77
1. Standard for Information Technology -- OSI Application Program Interface - Common ASN.1

Object Management API for X.400 and Directory Services APIs, P1224.

2. Standard for Information Technology -- OSI Application Program Interfaces -- X.400 Based

Electronic Messaging API, P1 224.1.

3. Standard for Information Technology, Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) -- Directory

Services Application Programming Interface, P1003.17.

4. Draft Standard 802.1 B: LAN/MAN Management, P802.1B/D20, January 27, 1992.

5. Draft Supplement to IEEE Std. 802.3: Repeater Management, P802.3.K/D5, December 22, 1991

.

The above documents may be obtained from: IEEE Standards Office, 345 East 47th Street, New York,

N.Y. 10017. Phone (800) 678-4333.

International Organization for Standardization

NOTE: Several versions of some of the ISO references that follow may exist. Different versions of

the same reference are distinguished by the year of publication. The reader should consult

the appropriate section of the Workshop Agreements to determine the applicable version when

a date Is not provided.

1 . Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Basic Reference Model, Ref.

No. ISO 7498-1 984(E).

2. Information Processing Systems - Data Communications - Use of X.25 to provide the OSI

Connection Mode Network Service, ISO 8878.

3. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Network Service Definition,

ISO 8348.

4. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Addendum to the Network

Service Definition Covering Connectionless Data Transmission, ISO 8348 Addendum 1.

5. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Addendum to the Network

Service Definition Covering Network Layer Addressing, ISO 8348 Addendum 2.

6. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Internal Organization of the

Network Layer, ISO 8648.

7. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Protocol for Providing the

Connectionless Network Service, ISO 8473.

8. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Data Communication - X.25

Packet Level Protocol for Data Terminal Equipment, ISO 8208.

9. 7-bit Coded Character Set for Information Processing Interchange, ISO 646, 1973.

78
10. Information Interchange - Representation of Local Time Differentials, ISO 3307, (975.

11. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Working Draft - End System

to Intermediate System Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with ISO 8473.

12. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Transport Service Definition,

ISO 8072.

13. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Transport Protocol

Specification, ISO 8073.

1 4. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Session Service Definition,

ISO 8326.

1 5. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Session Protocol Specification,

ISO 8327.

16. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - File Transfer, Access and

Management Part 1: General Introduction, ISO 8571-1.

1 7. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - File Transfer, Access and

Management Part 2: The Virtual Filestore Definition, ISO 8571 -2.

18. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - File Transfer, Access and

Management Part 3: File Service Definition, ISO 8571 -3.

19. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - File Transfer, Access and

Management Part 4: File Protocol Specification, ISO 8571 -4.

20. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Connection-Oriented

Presentation Service Definition, ISO 8822.

21. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Connection-Oriented

Presentation Protocol Specification, ISO 8823.

22. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Service Definition for Association Control Service Element - Part 2: Association Control, ISO 8649.

23. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Protocol Specification for Association Control Service Element: Association Control, ISO 8650.

24. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Specification of Abstract

Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), ISO 8824.

25. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Specification of Basic

Encoding Rules for Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), ISO 8825.

26. Information Processing Systems - Data Communications - High-Level Data Link Control

Procedures - Description of the X.25 LAPB-compatible DTE Data Link Procedures, ISO 7776.

79
27. Information Processing Systems - Data interchange - Structures for tlie identification of

Organizations, ISO 6523, 1984.

28. Information Processing Systems - Local Area Networks - Part 2: Logical Link Control, ISO 8802/2.

29. Information Processing Systems - Local Area Networks - Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple Access

With Collision Detection, ISO 8802-3

30. Information Processing Systems - Local Area Networks - Part 4: Token-passing Bus Access

Method and Physical Layer Specifications, ISO 8802/4.

31. Information Processing Systems - Local Area Networks Part 5: Token Ring Access Method and

Physical Layer Specifications, ISO 8802/5.

32. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Virtual Terminal Services - Basic Class, ISO 9040.

33. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Virtual Terminal Protocol - Basic Class, ISO 9041.

34. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems interconnection. Virtual Terminal Service, Basic

Class, ISO 9040, Addendum 1, 1988.

35. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection, Virtual Terminal Protocol, Basic

Class, ISO 9041 , Addendum 1 , 1 988.

36. Information Processing - Text and Office Systems-Office-Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Part 1: Introduction and General Principles, ISO 8613-1.

37. Information Processing - Text and Office Systems-Office-Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Part 2: Document Structures ISO 8613-2.

38. Information Processing - Text and Office Systems-Office- Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Part 4: Document Profile, ISO 8613-4.

39. Information Processing - Text and Office Systems-Office-Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Part 5: Office Document Interchange Format (ODIF), ISO 8613-5.

40. Information Processing - Text and Office Systems-Office-Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Part 6: Character Content Architectures, ISO 861 3-6.

41. Information Processing - Text and Office Systems-Office-Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Part 7: Raster Graphics Content Architectures, ISO 8613-7.

42. Information Processing - Text and Office Systems-Office-Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Part 8: Geometric Graphics Content Architectures, ISO 8613-8.

43. Information Processing Systems - Protocol Identification in the Network Layer, DTR 9577.

80
44. Information Processing Systems - End System to Intermediate System Routing Excliange

Protocol for use witfi ISO 8473, ISO 9542.

45. Information Processing Systems - Data Communications - Provision of tlie OSI Connection-mode

Network Service, by Packet Mode Terminal Equipment connected to an Integrated Services

Digital Network (ISDN), ISO 9574.

46. Information Processing Systems - Transport Service Definition covering Connectionless Mode

Transmission, ISO 8072/ADD.

47. Information Processing Systems - Protocol for Providing the Connectionless Mode Transport

Service, ISO 3602.

48. Information Processing Systems - Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between

Systems -OSI Routing Framework, ISO/TR 9575.

49. Information Processing Systems - Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between

Systems -Intermediate systems to Intermediate system Intra-Domain routing exchange protocol

for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the Connectionless mode Network Service

ISO 10589.

50. Information Processing Systems - Text Communication - Remote Operations, Part 1 : Model,

Notation and Service Definition, ISO 9072-1

51. Information Processing Systems - Text Communication - Remote Operations, Part 2: Protocol

Specification, ISO 9072-2.

52. Information Processing Systems - Text Communication - Reliable Transfer, Part 1 : Model and

Service Definition, ISO 9066-1

.

53. Information Processing Systems - Text Communication - Reliable Transfer, Part 2: Protocol

Specification, ISO 9066-2.

54. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Service Definition of Common

Application Service Elements - Commitment, Concurrency and Recovery, ISO 9804.

55. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Specification of Protocols for Common Application Service Elements - Commitment Concurrency and Recovery, ISO 9805.

56. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Connectionless ACSE Protocol

to Provide the Connectionless - Mode ACSE Service, ISO 10035.

57. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Connectionless Presentation

Protocol to Provide the Connectionless- Mode Presentation Service, ISO 9576.

58. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Connectionless Session

Protocol to Provide the Connectionless-Mode Session Service, ISO 9548.

59. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Distributed Transaction

Processing -Part 1: Model, ISO 10026-1.

81
60. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Distributed Transaction

Processing -Part 2: Service, ISO 10026-2.

.61. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Distributed Transaction

Processing -Part 3: Protocol, ISO 10026-3.

62. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Remote Database Access - Part 1: Generic Model, Service, and Protocol, ISO 9579-1, 1993.

63. Information Processing Systems - Remote Database Access Part 2: SQL Specialization, ISO

9579-2, 1993.

64. Industrial Automation Systems - Manufacturing Message Specification Part 1 : Service Definition,

ISO 9506-1.

65. Industrial Automation Systems - Manufacturing Message Specification Part 2: Protocol

Specification, ISO 9506-2.

66. Information and Documentation - Search and Retrieve Application Service Definition for Open

Systems Interconnection, ISO 10162.

67. Information and Documentation - Search and Retrieve Application Protocol Specification for Open

Systems Interconnection, ISO 10163.

68. Information Technology - Database Language - SQL - ISO 9075, 1992.

69. Information and Documentation - International Standard Profile - Application Profile for Search and

Retrieval - Connection-oriented, ISO SC4 WG4 ALD11.

70. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Overview of Concepts,

Models, and Service ISO 9594-1.

71 . Information Technology - Open Systems interconnection - The Directory: Models, ISO 9594-2.

72. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Abstract Service

Definition ISO 9594-3.

73. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Procedures for Distributed Operation, ISO 9594-4.

74. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Protocol Specifications,

ISO 9594-5.

75. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Selected Attribute

Types, ISO 9594-6.

76. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Selected Object

Classes, ISO 9594-7.

82
77. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Tlie Directory: Autlienticatlon

Framework, ISO 9594-8.

78. Information Teclinology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Replication, ISO 9594-9.

79. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Management Information Sen/ice

Definition -Common Management Information Service Definition, ISO 9595.

80. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Management Information Protocol

Specification - Common Management Information Protocol, ISO 9596-1

.

81 . Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Structure of Management Information - Part 2: Definitions of Management Information, ISO 10165-2.

82. Information Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Elements of Management Information Related to OSI Network Layer Standards, Revised text for ISO DIS 10733, September 26, 1991.

83. Information Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Intermediate system to Intermediate system Intra-Domain routing information exchange protocol

for use in conjnction with the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service

(ISO 8473), ISO 10589: 1992(E).

84. Information Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Elements of Management Information Related to OSI Transport Layer Standards, ISO JTC1/SC6

N6784, November 7, 1991. (DIS Ballot text for ISO DIS 10737-1)

85. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Structure of Management Information - Part 4: Guidelines for the Definition of Managed Objects, ISO 10165-4.

86. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Systems Management - Part 1 : Object

Management Function, ISO 10164-1.

87. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Systems Management - Part 2: State

Management Function, ISO 10164-2.

88. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Systems Management - Part 3: Attributes for Representing Relationships, ISO 10164-3.

89. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Systems Management - Part 4: Alarm

Reporting Function, ISO 10164-4.

90. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Systems Management - Part 5: Event

Report Management Function, ISO 10164-5.

91. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Systems Management - Part 6: Log

Control Function, ISO 10164-6.

92. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Systems Management - Part 7: Security Alarm Reporting Function, ISO 10164-7.

83
93. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Service definition for the Association

Control Service Element - ADDENDUM 1: Peer-entity authentication during association

establishment, ISO 8649 DAD 1

.

94. Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Protocol specification for the

Association Control Service Element - ADDENDUM 1: Peer-entity authentication during

association establishment, ISO 8650 DAD 1.

95. Information Processing Systems - Fiber Distributed Data Interface {FDD!) Part 1: Token Ring

Physical Layer Protocol, ISO 9314-1.

96. Information Processing Systems - Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) Part 2: Token Ring

Medium Access Control (MAC), ISO 9314-2.

97. Information Processing Systems - Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) Part 3: Token Ring

Physical Medium Dependent (PMD), ISO 9314-3

98. Information Processing Systems - Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) Part 4: Token Ring

Single Mode Fiber Physical Medium Dependent (SMF-PMD), CD 9314-4.

99. Information Processing Systems - Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) Part 6: Token Ring

Station Management (SMT) Medium Dependent (MAC), CD 9314-6.

100. Information Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - End

System Routing Information Exchange Protocol for use in conjunction with ISO 8878, ISO 10030.

101 . Protocol Combinations to Provide and Support the OSI Network Service - Provision and Support

of the Connectionless Mode Network Service, ISO 8880-3.

102. Information Processing Systems - Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between

Systems -Protocol for Exchange of Inter-Domain Routing Information among Intermediate

Systems to Support Fowarding of ISO 8473 PDUs, CD 10747.

103. Information Processing Systems- Telecommunications and Information Exchange between

Systems - MAC Sublayer Interconnection (MAC Bridging), ISO 10038.

104. Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - International Standardized

Profile 12061 - Transaction Processing.

a) ISO ISP 12061-5, ATP 11: Polarized Application Supported Transactions

b) ISO ISP 12061-7, ATP 21: Unchained Provider Supported Transactions

c) ISO ISP 12061-9 ATP 31: Chained Provider Supported Transactions

105. Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP), ISO 10303.

106. Procedures for the operation of OSI Registration Authorities, General Procedures, ISO 9834-1,

1992

107. Codes for the Representation of Names of Countries, ISO 3166, 1988

84
108. Data Interchange - Structure for the Identification of Organizations, ISO 6523, 1984.

109. Information Processing Systems - Computer Graphics - Metafile for the Storage and Transfer of Picture Description Information, ISO 8632:1992.

110. Information Technology - International Standardized Profile 11187-4 - AVTIn, AVT2n - Virtual

Terminal Basic Class - Application Profile - Part 4: AVT23 - S mode Paged Application Profile.

111. Information Technology - International Standardized Profile 1 061 1 , Parts 1 -5 - AMH1 n - Message

Handling Systems - Common Messaging.

112. Information Technology - International Standardized Profile 11188-3 - Common Upper Layer

Requirements - Part 3 - Minimal OS! Upper Layer Facilities.

The above documents may be obtained from:

ANSI Sales Department

1430 Broadway

New York, NY 10018

(212) 642-4900

International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative Committee

1 . CCITT Recommendation X.25-1984, Interface Between Data Terminal Equipment (DTE) and Data

Circuit-Terminating Equipment (DCE) for Terminals Operating in the Packet Mode on Public Data

Networks.

2. CCITT Recommendation X.400, (Red Book, 1984), Message Handling Systems: System

Model-Service Elements.

3. CCITT Recommendation X.401, (Red Book, 1984), Message Handling Systems: Basic Service

Elements and Optional User Facilities.

4. CCITT Recommendation X.408, (Red Book, 1984), Message Handling Systems: Encoded

Information Type Conversion Rules.

5. CCITT Recommendation X.409, (Red Book, 1984), Message Handling Systems: Presentation

Transfer Syntax and Notation.

6. CCITT Recommendation X.410, (Red Book, 1984), Message Handling Systems: Remote

Operations and Reliable Transfer Server.

7. CCITT Recommendation X.411, (Red Book, 1984), Message Handling Systems: Message

Transfer Layer.

8. CCITT Recommendation X.420, (Red Book, 1984), Message Handling Systems: Interpersonal

Messaging User Agent Layer.

9. CCITT Recommendation X.430, (Red Book, 1 984), Message Handling Systems: Access Protocol

for Teletex Terminals.

85
1 0. CCITT Recommendation X.21 4, (Red Book, 1 984), Transport Service Definition for Open Systems

Interconnection for CCITT Applications.

11. CCITT Recommendation X.224, (Red Book, 1984), Transport Protocol Specification for Open

Systems Interconnection for CCITT Applications.

12. CCITT Recommendation X.21 5 (Red Book, 1984), Session Service Definition for Open Systems

Interconnection for CCITT Applications.

13. CCITT Recommendation X.225 (Red Book, 1984), Session Protocol Specification for Open

Systems Interconnection for CCITT Applications.

14. CCITT Recommendation X.400 - Series Implementor's Guide (Version 6, November 1987).

15. CCITT Recommendation X.I 21 (Red Book, 1985), International Numbering Plan for Public Data

Networks.

1 6. CCITT Recommendation V.35 - Data Transmission at 48 kilobits/second using 60-108 kHz group

band circuits.

17. CCITT Recommendation T.410 (Blue Book, 1988) Open Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Overview

18. CCITT Recommendation T.411 (Blue Book, 1988) Open Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Introduction and General Principles

19. CCITT Recommendation T.412 (Blue Book, 1988) Open Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Document Structures

20. CCITT Recommendation T.414 (Blue Book, 1988) Open Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Document Profile

21. CCITT Recommendation T.415 (Blue Book, 1988) Open Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Document Interchange Format (ODIF)

22. CCITT Recommendation T.416 (Blue Book, 1988) Open Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Character Content Architectures

23. CCITT Recommendation T.417 (Blue Book, 1988) Open Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Raster Graphics Content Architectures.

24. CCITT Recommendation T.418 (Blue Book, 1988) Open Document Architecture (ODA) and

Interchange Format - Geometric Graphics Content Architectures.

25. CCITT Recommendation Q.921 (1.441 ) (Blue Book, 1 988) ISDN User-Network Interface Data Link

Layer Specification.

26. CCITT Recommendation Q.931 (1.451) (Blue Book, 1988) ISDN User-Network Interface Layer 3

Specification for Basic Call Control.

86
27. CCITT Recommendation X.31 (Blue Book, 1988) Support of Packet Mode Terminal Equipment

by an ISDN.

28. CCITT Recommendation X.400 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling System and Service

Overview. This Recommendation is identical to CCITT Recommendation F.400 (Blue Book,

1988).

29. CCITT Recommendation X.402 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling Systems: Overall

Architecture.

30. CCITT Recommendation X.403 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling Systems: Conformance

Testing.

31 . CCITT Recommendation X.407 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling Systems: Abstract Service

Definition Conventions.

32. CCITT Recommendation X.408 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling Systems: Encoded

Information Type Conversion Rules.

33. CCITT Recommendation X.411 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling Systems: Message

Transfer System: Abstract Service Definition and Procedures.

34. CCITT Recommendation X.413 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling Systems: Message Store:

Abstract Service Definition.

35. CCITT Recommendation X.419 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling Systems: Protocol

Specifications.

36. CCITT Recommendation X.420 (Blue Book, 1988), Message Handling Systems: Interpersonal

Messaging System.

37. CCITT Recommendation X.500 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Concepts, Models and Services (Technically aligned with ISO

9594-1).

38. CCITT Recommendation X.501 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Models (Technically aligned with ISO 9594-2).

39. CCITT Recommendation X.509 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Authentication Framework (Technically aligned with ISO 9594-8).

40. CCITT Recommendation X.511 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Abstract Service Definition (Technically aligned with ISO 9594-3).

41. CCITT Recommendation X.518 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Procedures for Distributed Operation (Technically aligned with

ISO 9594-4).

42. CCITT Recommendation X.519 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Protocol Specifications (Technically aligned with ISO 9594-5).

87
43. CCITT Recommendation X.520 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Selected Attribute Types (Technically aligned with ISO 9594-6).

44. CCITT Recommendation X,521 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Selected Object Classes (Technically aligned with ISO 9594-7).

45. CCITT Recommendation X.525 (December 1992), Information Technology - Open System

Interconnection - The Directory: Replication (Technically aligned with ISO 9594-9).

46. CCITT Recommendation F.435 - Message Handling Systems: EDI Messaging Service (1991).

47. CCITT Recommendation X.435 - Message Handling Systems: EDI Messaging System (1991).

48. CCITT Draft Recommendation (M.gnm) Generic Network Information Model, November 1991.

49. CCITT Recommendation X.660 (1992), Procedures for the Operation of OSI Registration

Authorities, General Procedures.

The above documents may be obtained from: International Telecommunications Union, Place des

Nations, CH 1211, Geneve 20 SWITZERLAND.

National Communications System

Federal Standard FED-STD 1041, Interface Between Data Terminal Equipment (DTE) and Data

Circuit-Terminating Equipment (DCE) For Operation With Packet-Switched Data Communications

Networks, National Communications System.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

1. NIST Special Publication 500-206, Stable Implementation Agreements for Open Systems

Interconnection Protocols, Version 6, December 1992. This document can be purchased from

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, VA 221 61 . For telephone orders call: (703) 487-4650. For information on how

' to access this document on-line, contact Brenda Gray at (301) 975-3664.

2. FIPS Pub 107, Local Area Networks: Baseband Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision

Detection Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications and Link Layer Protocol, NTIS, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

3. FIPS Pub 1 00-1 , Interface Between Data Terminal Equipment (DTE) and Data Circuit-Terminating

Equipment (DCE) For Operation With Packet-Switched Data Networks, (PDSN), or between two

DTEs, by Dedicated Circuit. NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.

4. FIPS Pub 179, Government Network Management Profile (GNMP). See [NIST 7] for ordering

information.

88
5. Military Supplement to ISO Transport Protocol, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

National Computer Systems Laboratory, ICST/SNA-85-1 7, 1985.

6. Implementation Guide for ISO Transport Protocol, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

National Computer Systems Laboratory, ICST/SNA-85-1 8, 1985.

7. NIST Special Publication 500-192 Government Open Systems Interconnection User's Guide,

Version 2. This document can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service

(NTIS), U. S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. For

telephone orders call (703) 487-4650.

8. GOSIP Conformance and Interoperation Testing and Registration, March 1991, Version 1.0,

NISTIR 4594. The document can be obtained from NIST, Systems & Network Architecture

Division, Automated Methods Group, BIdg 225, Room B217, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

9. NIST Special Publication 500-182, Guidelines for the Evaluation of Message Handling Systems

Implementations. See [NIST 7] for NTIS ordering information.

10. NIST Special Publication 500-196, Guidelines for the Evaluation of File Transfer, Access and

Management Implementations. See [NIST 7] for NTIS ordering information.

11. FIPS Pub 128, Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM).

1 2. FIPS Pub 1 52, Information Processing - Text and office systems - Standard Generalized Markup

Language (SGML) - Aligned with ISO 8879.

13. Working Implementation Agreements for Open Systems Interconnection Protocols, March 1992.

1 4. "Specifications for a Secure Hash Standard," proposed Federal Information Processing Standard,

January 22, 1992 (available from NIST, call 301-975-2816.

15. NIST Special Publication 500-205, Guidelines for the Evaluation of Virtual Terminal

Implementation. See [NIST 7] for NTIS ordering information.

16. FIPS 146-1, Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile (GOSIP), Version 2. See [NIST 7] for NTIS ordering information.

Miscellaneous

1 . Manufacturing Automation Protocol

2. Technical and Office Protocols, Specification Version 3.0

For copies of the two documents listed above, contact: Corporation for Open Systems, 8260 Willow

Oaks Corporate Drive, Suite 700, Fairfax, VA 22031

.

3. RFC 1 331 , Point-to-Point Protocol for the transmission of multi-protocol datagrams over Pointto-Point links, D. Perkins, July 1990.

89
4. RFC 1237 Guidelines for OS! NSAP allocation in the Internet, R. Colella, E.P. Gardner, R.W.

Gallon, July 1991.

5. RFC 1172, The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration Options, D. Perkins, R. Hobby

6. RFC 1377, The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP), November 1992.

Copies of the four documents listed above can be obtained from the Internet Network Information

Center (NIC).

7. X-Window System, X Version 11 R4 (X11-R4).

8. Z39.50 Implementors Group Profile, ANSI Z39.50-MA-026.

9. Network Management Forum: Forum 006, "Forum Library - Volume 4: OMNIPoint 1 Definitions," Issue 1.0, August 1992.

90
FOREWORD TO THE APPENDICES

Appendices 1-5 describe IGOSS requirements for which adequate specifications have yet to be

developed. The appendices give a summary of protocols planned for inclusion in a future version of

the IGOSS. Where appropriate, the requirements for including the protocol and a plan of work to meet

the requirements are given. It is expected that this information can assist IGOSS organizations in planning decisions related to the acquisition of implementations of OSI protocols.

Appendix 6 specifies conformance specifications for the Directory Services application. Appendix 7

contains the meaning of a list of acronyms used in this document.

91
APPENDIX 1. SECURITY

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Security Architecture was approved as an International

Standard (iS 7498/2) in 1988. It defines a general architecture that may be used in providing security

services in OSI networks. Five primary security services, authentication, access control, data

confidentiality, data integrity, and non-repudiation, are specified in the architecture. It also discusses

mechanisms that may be used in providing these services and the OSI layers where they could be

offered. IS 7498/2 provides a framework for the incorporation of security in OSI protocols, but

significant effort is required to standardize protocol specifications that contain security features. This

appendix addresses the need for security standards, the status of standards being developed and

plans for developing additional required standards.

While OSI attempts to improve communications between heterogeneous computer systems, there is a need to limit access to only authorized users and for authorized purposes. Systems that process

sensitive data must be protected from a wide variety of threats. The security services mentioned

above provide safeguards against unauthorized access to systems and data, and against unauthorized

disclosure, modification or destruction of data, which may occur accidentally or intentionally.

Security services may be provided at one or more of the layers 3, 4, and 7. The security architecture

described here suggests a range of choices for security services and their placement. It is expected

that subsets of these services at selected layers will adequately satisfy specific security requirements.

Security may restrict access and may inhibit interoperability, thus the selection and placement of

security mechanisms should insure that interoperability among components of the target system is not

affected.

1.2 REQUIREMENTS

The security services defined in the OSI security architecture are authentication, access control,

confidentiality, integrity and non-repudiation. These are defined in detail in IS 7498/2 and are summarized below:

• Data confidentiality services protect against unauthorized disclosure. Protection of medical

records to insure patient's privacy is an example of the need for confidentiality.

• Data integrity services protect against unauthorized modification, insertion and deletion.

Electronic funds transfer between banks requires protection against modification of the information.

• Authentication services verify the identity of communicating peer entities and the source of data.

Owners of bank accounts require assurance that money will be withdrawn only by them.

• Access control services allow only authorized communications and access to system resources. Only financial officers are authorized access to a company's financial plans.

• Non-repudiation, with proof of origin, provides to the recipient proof of the origin of data and

protects against any attempt by the originator to falsely deny sending the data. Non-repudiation,

with proof of delivery, provides to the sender proof of the delivery of data. The non-repudiation

92
service can be used to prove to a judge that a person received or sent a message (e.g., a purchase order).

Government agencies may require the implementation of some or all of these services In their

communications systems. Authentication, confidentiality, integrity, and access control services may

be implemented in layers 3, 4 and 7 of the OS! architecture. The non-repudiation service is offered

only at layer 7. It is possible to provide comparable security services at layers 3 and 4, such services

should be required at only one of these layers. The selection of security services at specific layers

must be made by the acquisition authority. The selection and placement of mechanisms to support

security services is based on the perceived threats and a balance between protection and cost.

1.3 STATUS

Interoperability standards for IGOSS security are required at layers 3, 4, and 7 of the OSI architecture.

NIST published the Secure Data Network System (SDNS) specifications for security at layers 3 and

4. (See NISTIR 90-4250). ANSI presented these specifications to ISO, where they are being

progressed as the Network Layer Security Protocol (NLSP) and the Transport Layer Security Protocol

(TLSP). In Canada, the COSAC security profile provides a guide to implementing security consistent

with the OSI Security Architecture (IS 7498/2). Specifications for data authentication have been issued

In standards by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (FIRS 113) and ANSI (ANSI X9.9).

Specification for a DES-based key management protocol has been issued in a standard by ANSI

(X9.17). The U.S. FederalGovernment is promulgating a new Standard Security Label (SSL) FIPS

which provides a security labeling mechanism which will be referenced by the GOSIP. Security

Functional Groups for the X.400 Message Handling System defining three security classes are now

specified in the Workshop Agreements and referenced by the IGOSS. The following subsections

highlight current efforts in standardization of security protocols and estimated time frames for the

availability of standards.

1.3.1 OSI Security Frameworks

A set of security frameworks on specific security services and procedures are planned by the ISO/

JTC1/SC21/WG1 Security Group. Although the scope of these frameworks is broader than just OSI,

the Security SIG will continue to use them as guidance in the adoption of Implementors Agreements.

1 .3.2 Network Layer Security

The SDNS Security Protocol for Layer 3 document (SP3) is available for public use. This protocol was

presented to ANSI in 1989, who then submitted it to ISO as a U.S. contribution. ISO is currently

progressing a Network Layer Security Protocol (NLSP) that is based on the original SP3. Both SP3

and NLSP encapsulate Network Protocol Data Units (N-PDUs) and provide different levels of protection for use with connection oriented and connectionless network protocols. These protocols

may be implemented in intermediate and end systems. The Network Layer Security Protocol (NLSP)

became an International Standard (IS) in late 1993.

1 .3.3 Transport Layer Security

The SDNS Security Protocol for Layer 4 document (SP4) is available for public use. This protocol was

presented to ANSI in 1989, who then submitted it to ISO as a U.S. contribution. A Transport Layer

Security Protocol (TLSP) that is based on the original SP4 is now an ISO international standard. Both

SP4 and TLSP encapsulate Transport Protocol Data Units (T-PDUs) as a SE T-PDU (SE stands for

93
security envelope or secure encapsulation). If an integrity service is desired, an integrity check value

is computed and appended to the PDU. If confidentiality is desired, the entire T-PDU, including a

previously appended integrity check value, is enciphered. A receiver, in possession of the correct

security attributes (e.g., a cryptographic key), can decipher the SE T-PDU, verify its integrity and then

process the resulting T-PDU.

94
APPENDIX 2. SYSTEM AND NETWORK ARCHITECTURE

2.1 NETWORK MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

For the definitions of management information, this version of the IGOSS (Version 1) focuses primarily on

identifying the information required for managing implementations incorporating the functionality specified

for layers 1-4 of the OS! Reference Model [ISO 1].

Version 2 of the IGOSS will mainly add the information required for managing implementations of the

functions specified for layers 5-7 of the OSI reference model.

SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

The inclusion of the additional Systems Management Functions (SMFs) for Version 2 and subsequent

versions of the IGOSS is to be in accordance with the status of the management standards and of the lAs; that is, as the SMFs mature and OIW Implementors Agreements (lAs) are reached on the SMFs, these lAs

will be considered for inclusion in the IGOSS. For example, standards are now under development to specify how managing and managed systems are to share management knowledge needed and used in common. These specifications will be referenced in the IGOSS as they become available as international

standards.

MANAGEMENT SECURITY

Version 1 of the IGOSS specifies two optional peer-entity authentication modes. Mode 1 (a simple

username/password mechanism) and Mode 2 (employs a hash function on the authentication information).

Work on Access Control, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Non-repudiation standards is still formative, but these

issues will be addressed in future versions of the IGOSS. A goal of the IGOSS is to provide all necessary

security services to address the security needs of network management.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT ENSEMBLES

A recently developed concept related to the selection of managed objects (MOs) and system management

functions (SMFs) that solves a particular management problem is the concept of "ensembles." Currently, an ensemble is defined as a coherent unit that specifies: 1) the particular problem to be solved, the

requirements associated with the problem and a solution to the problem; and 2) the standards and MOs

making up the solution. This concept was developed by the Network Management Forum (NMF). The

NMF, with cooperation from the OIW, is developing specific ensembles (e.g., the OSI Interworking

Ensemble and the Reconfigurable Circuit Service: Configuration Management (RCS) Ensemble). While more work needs to be done, the concept appears to have merit and offers potential for assisting in the

preparation of procurement specifications for NM products. As the ensembles concept and the definitions

of the ensembles mature and stabilize, consideration will be made on whether or not to include ensembles

in future versions of the IGOSS.

95
2.2 MULTIPEER/MULTICAST (MPMC) COMMUNICATIONS

Broadcast systems have a single communication ctiannel that is shared by all end systems on a

subnetwork. MPMC communications allows data to be sent to a subset of these end systems in a single

transmission.

REQUIREMENT

The proliferation of large scale distributed systems architectures and the evolution of new applications (e.g. resource location, conferencing, multi-media, management) have highlighted the requirement for the

incorporation of MPMC communications in OSI. MPMC communications provide more efficient transmission of data to multiple destinations and communicate with one or more applications whose

addresses are unknown or changeable.

STATUS

Recently, ISO and CCITT have begun new projects to address MPMC communications. ISO/IEC JTC1

SC6 has active efforts in defining "Enhanced Communication Functions and Facilities for Lower Layers."

These efforts are primarily directed at the development of next generation protocols at the Transport,

Network, and Datalink layers. MPMC is a fundamental part of this activity. SC6 also has a distinct activity to incorporate simple connectionless multicast into the suite of existing OSI lower layer protocols. CCITT

SGVII is developing multicast network service specifications {X.6) and is working toward the incorporation

of MPMC into the OSI architecture.

PLAN

To achieve general support of MPMC in OSI, research, development and standardization are required in the areas of:

o OSI architecture, to address multi-layer issues and incorporate MPMC communications into the

reference model;

0 OSI upper layers, to add facilities to initiate control and exploit MPMC communication; and,

0 OSI lower layers, to add facilities to efficiently provide the underlying multicast service that is fundamental to MPMC communications.

IGOSS organizations will be active technical contributors to the development of the protocols and

addressing specifications required to implement the MPMC services.

96
APPENDIX 3. UPPER LAYERS

3.1 MESSAGE HANDLING SYSTEMS EXTENSIONS

Message Handling Systems (MHS) specifications in Version 1 of the IGOSS are based on the 1984 and

1 988 CCITT Recommendations. IGOSS MHS extensions will use the CCITT 1 988 MHS Recommendations

as a base.

REQUIREMENTS

1. Alignment with functionality in the 1992 Directory Services Recommendations is needed.

2. The CCITT 1988 MHS Recommendations provide a mechanism to define new body parts. New body

parts may be needed to meet user requirements.

3. Stable agreements need to be completed for the relatively few X.400 enhancements made in 1 992.

This included profiling of the Interpersonal Message header extensions and the File Transfer Body Part.

4. Interim MHS Management agreements may be necessary if more rapid progress Is not made in this area by CCITT and ISO.

5. Voice Messaging (See CCITT Recommendation X.440) needs to be integrated into MHS.

6. Enhancements to the Message Store service are required, subject to completion of the base standard

work in this area.

7. The security requirements of both the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Canadian Department

of Defence (DND) need to be investigated to determine to what extent they can be included in commercial

MHS implementations. The U.S. DoD Message Security Protocol should be a starting point in identifying

these requirements.

STATUS

Standards - The 1992 CCITT MHS Recommendations are complete and have been formally approved

Implementors Agreements - The intent of the X.400 SIG is to replace the existing Chapter 8 MHS 1988

agreements with a reference to the ISP and only specify additional North American regional requirements.

This is made possible because of the high level of technical harmonization that currently exists between

the regional agreements.

PLAN

The first six requirements are work items for the MHS SIG. Agreements will be incorporated into the stable

workshop document when complete and the services that they provide will appear in MHS products at a

later date.

NIST will work with the Defense Information Systems Agency to determine what DoD security services are candidates to be included in commercial implementations. Canada will redraft the COSAC MHS profile to

97
take into account the additional security services provided by the CCITT 1988 MHS Recommendations in close cooperation with the DND.

3.2 FILE TRANSFER, ACCESS, AND MANAGEMENT (FTAM) EXTENSIONS

The File Transfer, Access and Management Protocol and service allow users on different networks to communicate about files (and transfer files) without requiring that one user know the detailed file characteristics of the other user. A generic file organization is defined for communication; elements of this

virtual file model are mapped to corresponding elements of the local file system. A comprehensive set of

file attributes and file activity attributes is defined; in addition, a large number of actions is possible on a

wide variety of file types.

REQUIREMENTS

Additional requirements for FTAM include the following:

1 . filestore management

2. "run length" compression

3. FTAM directory requirements

4. FTAM security

5. use of FTAM to transfer exchange formats

6. advanced adaptive compression

STATUS

Overlapped access and filestore management are nearing IS status as addenda to FTAM.

PLAN

IGOSS organizations will work with the FTAM SIG of the OSE Implementors Workshop to insure that the

functionality specified above is incorporated into future implementations.

3.3 REMOTE DATABASE ACCESS EXTENSIONS

Remote Database Access (RDA) allows the interconnection of database applications among heterogeneous

environments by providing standard OSI Application layer protocols to establish a remote connection

between a database client and a database server. The client is acting on behalf of an application program

while the server is interfacing to a process that controls data transfers to and from a database.

REQUIREMENT

The RDA application may be implemented in conjunction with the Basic Application Context or the TP

Application Context. The first version of the IGOSS supports only the Basic Application context. The Basic

Application Context includes RDA and the ACSE Application Service element and provides a one-phase

commit protocol. The TP Application Context provides a two-phase commit which allows updates at multiple remote sites in the same transaction. The TP Application Context includes the following

Application Service Elements: RDA, ACSE, TP, and, in provider supported transactions, CCR. Users

require the additional services provided by the TP Application Context. Figure A.3.3 shows the application

subprofile for RDA TP Application Context implementations.

98
STATUS

Standards - Remote Database Access Part 1: Generic Model, Service and Protocol (ISO 9579-1) and

Remote Database Access Part 2: SQL Specialization (ISO 9579-2) were formally approved as International

Standards in 1 992.

PLAN

The development of Workshop Agreements for the TP Application Context is expected to commence in 1993.

t

Application

Layer

i

Presentation

Layer

Session

Layer

RDA

ISO 9579

TP

ISO 10026-3

ACSE

ISO 8650

OCR

ISO 9805

ISO 8823

ISO 8327

= Provider Supported Transactions only

Figure A.3.3. RDA TP Application Context Application Subprofile.

3.4 OSI REMOTE PROCEDURE CALL

The remote procedure call paradigm is the cornerstone of distributed processing systems and client-server

architectures. It is used as a building block for advanced services such as distributed file access, remote

printing services, and remote execution services. It may also potentially be used across a whole host of

applications domains, including office systems, manufacturing, and telecommunications services.

The OSI Remote Procedure Call standard allows application programmers to issue procedure calls to services on remote systems. The OSI Remote Procedure Call standard also specifies a Interface Definition

Notation. The notation is used to specify interfaces to remote services. It shields the application

programmer from ASN.1.

REQUIREMENTS

Government and industry are beginning to procure distributed processing and remote procedure call systems. The OSI Remote Procedure Call standard allows these systems to interwork with applications on one system accessing services on another. The Interface Definition Notation also promises io provide a common language bridge between an application written in one programming language (e.g., C) and a

service written in another (e.g., Ada). As local area networks, proprietary network operating systems, and

99
proprietary remote procedure call systems are procured, there will be a growing need for OSI Remote

Procedure Call to link the systems together. In addition, the OSI Remote Procedure Call standard will allow

applications written for one remote procedure call system to be ported to another more easily.

STATUS

The OSI Remote Procedure Call standard (ISO CD 11578) is composed of five parts:

o Part 1 : Model,

o Part 2: Interface Definition Notation,

o Part 3: Service,

o Part 4: Protocol, and

0 Part 5: Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement Proforma.

The OSI Remote Procedure Call standard is expected to reach Draft International Standard status in November 1 993 and International Standard Status in December 1 994.

PLAN

Vendors are likely to begin implementation of the standard in 1993. A Remote Procedure Call SIG should

be formed within the OIW. The work items for this new SIG should include:

o Remote Procedure Call API,

o Language Bindings for the Interface Definition Notation (IDN), and

o a Profile for the OSI Remote Procedure Call standard.

The Remote Procedure Call API is necessary for distributed processing tools (e.g., stub compilers) to be

used in conjunction with the OSI Remote Procedure Call API. It is important that this API be supportable

by proprietary distributed processing systems as well as OSI Remote Procedure Call. The Language

Bindings for the Interface Definition Notation will enable interface definitions to be written in standardized

programming languages and mapped to the standard Interface Definition Notation. Bindings for C, C++,

and COBOL are anticipated. The Profile for the OSI Remote Procedure Call standard will enable

implementors' to more quickly and consistently implement the standard.

3.5 DOCUMENT FILING AND RETRIEVAL (DFR)

One of the functions that must be provided in a distributed network is the ability to store and retrieve

documents and other files. Document Filing and Retrieval (DFR) specifies the services provided by a file server and the application protocols used between a file server and its clients.

100
REQUIREMENTS

DFR supports the following features that satisfy user document filing and retrieval requirements:

o Large capacity document storage for use by multiple users in a distributed system.

0 Order filing and multi-key retrieval.

o Structure organization of groups of documents.

o Management of different versions of the same document.

0 Association of attributes with documents and groups.

0 Search by attribute values.

0 Concurrent access to documents and groups.

o Protection against unauthorized access.

0 Storage of an open-ended number of documents types.

STATUS

ISO 10166 (DFR) is an International Standard in two parts. Part 1 is the Abstract Service Definition and

Procedures. Part 2 is the Protocol Specification. DFR is a distributed application located in the Application

Layer of the Reference Model for Open Systems Interconnection (see ISO 7498). DFR is also one of a

series of International Standards defining applications needed in the area of office automation, as described

in the Distributed-office-application-model (ISO 10031-1).

PLAN

In order to produce interoperable DFR products, implementors agreements must be developed by the OSE

Implementors' Workshop. It is desirable that these agreements be aligned with DFR profiling work currently

underway in other regional workshops.

3.6 DOCUMENT PRINTING APPLICATION

One of the functions that must be provided in a distributed network is the ability to print documents on a

printer located remotely from a client workstation or file server. Document Printing Application (DPA)

specifies the user and administration services provided by a print server and the application protocols used

between a print server and its clients.

REQUIREMENTS

DPA supports the following features that satisfy user document printing requirements:

o Gives multiple users access to distributed printers.

o Conveys information concerning scheduling and processing requirements for printing,

including special paper or finishing options such as stapling or binding.

101
0 Provides users with tfie ability to monitor and manage the progress of print jobs

through administrative services.

0 Protects against unauthorized printing of documents.

STATUS

ISO 10175 (DPA) is a Draft Internationa! Standard. It is in two parts. Part 1 is the Abstract Service

Definition and Procedures. Part 2 is the Protocol Specification. DPA is a distributed application located

in the Application Layer of the Reference Model for Open Systems interconnection (see ISO 7498). DPA

is also consistent with the model, architectural framework, and design principles of the Distributed-office- application-model (ISO 10Q31-2).

PLAN

In order to produce interoperable DPA products, implementors agreements must be developed by the OSE

Impiementors' Workshop. It is desirable thgt these agreements be aligned with DPA profiling work that may

begin in other regional workshops.

3.7 081 CLIENT/SERVeR fi/IOpli

BACKGROUND

OSI provides application services which operate in a Client/Server environment. A method of designing

and procuring services vyhich opfraje in a Client/Servers environment is needed.

REQUIREMENT

OSI is lacking a distributed computing model for the client/server environment. An OSI Client/Server model

is important to users or developers of distributed computing software. The model should include the current and future OSI applications that can operate under this model and the "role" that they play. The model

should also include the AppliC9tlon Programming Interfaces that can be used to access Client/Server

services.

STATUS

ISO has developed a Distrubuted Office Applications Model (DOAM-ISO 10031) for use in specifying

Client/Server services and protocols.

PLAN

The IGOSS organizations will work with the OSE Implementors Workshop to specify an integrated

Client/Server profile for distributed computing.

3.8 MINIMAL OSI STACK

Section 3.2.13 in the main body of this document specifies a minimal OSI stack that can be used to provide

basic communication services to a wide range of connection oriented network applications that only require

the ability to open and close connections and to send and receive messages. Section 3.2.10 specifies how

the X-Windows application can be mapped onto the minimal OSI stack.

102
The Minimal OS! Stack Architecture may be used by other OSI applications that only require basic

communications services. These include:

a) FTAM implementations that do not use the recovery service,

b) TP implementations which use only application-supported-transactions, and

c) all ROSE based applications which do not use RTSE

The minimal OSI stack provides all services required by these applications although products which

exclusively implement the minimal stack are not yet widely available. The mapping of the OSI applications

onto the Minimal OSI stack can be direct or by means of the Applications Programming Interface specified

in Appendix 5.

103
I •
APPENDIX 4. LOWER LAYERS

4.1 Distributed Queue Dual Bus

The Distributed Queue Dual Bus (DQDB) protocol, a protocol used for the Metropolitan Area Network

(MAN)/IEEE 802.6, provides for communications at high speed (up to 1 55 Mbps) over larger distances than was possible with LANs.

The protocol employs a bus architecture and uses a communications reservation system in which each

node with data to send notifies its upstream neighbor of its need to transmit. The neighbor then reserves space for the required transmission at the next or a subsequent signaling interval. Thus the transmit queue

is said to be distributed.

A dual bus of counter-rotating rings provides both speed and fault tolerance. The direction of data flow on each ring is opposite to the flow of data on the other ring. If a fault occurs in a station or a fiber, the

remaining stations can reconfigure the rings to make a single ring including all remaining stations, and data

flow continues.

The last station on the bus continually generates empty frames of 125 microseconds each which are broken

down into 53 octet segments that are filled by downstream stations.

DQDB fits into the standard IEEE 802 protocol hierarchy. Protocol is specified for the physical layer and

Media Access Control (MAC) sublayer of the link layer. The standard IEEE 802.2 specification for Logical

Link Control (LLC) fits above the MAC sublayer as it does for the other IEEE 802 LANs.

REQUIREMENT

DQDB is typically used for applications requiring very high speed, high volume data transmission such as CAD/CAM and medical imaging. Since it will soon have an isochronous capability, it will be more widely

used, particularly where a high-capacity service is needed to provide enterprise networking including data,

voice and full-motion video. There is a requirement to include DQDB as a future IGOSS subnetwork

technology.

STATUS

The IEEE 802.6 committee has published the initial version on the DQDB standard. It covers only use with a T3 (44.734 Mbps) facility.

PLAN

The IEEE 802.6 committee is working on a T1 specification, which will be based on the work done by

Bellcore in its SMDS specifications. Work is also in progress to permit use of DQDB in SONET and the

European digital hierarchy (El, E3, etc.) Other additions to the standard planned are Isochronous

transport, variable bit rate transmission and network management. IGOSS organizations will work with the

Lower Layer SIG of the OSE Implementors Workshop to insure that implementation agreements are developed in a timely manner.

105
4.2 Broadband ISDN (B-ISDN)

Broadband ISDN, an application of cell relay technique using the Asynchronous Transfer Mode standard,

is a second generation of ISDN intended eventually to achieve widespread switched service at very high

speeds. The key characteristic of B-ISDN is that it provides ISDN services using broadband channels

capable of supporting rates greater than the primary ISDN rate. Using SONET as a basis, B-ISDN offers users a virtual circuit service at speeds up to 2 Gbps. Carriers and vendors both may access any portion

of the multiplexed signal at any node, adding and dropping any channel in the process. Thus, for example, a node can access a DS1 channel multiplexed into a stream containing both DS1 and DS3 channels,

without having to perform multiple levels of demultiplexing, as was necessary with earlier technologies.

B-ISDN is a packet switching technology which achieves its high speed by reducing the error recovery that was a large part of X.25 packet switching service. In addition, it will offer an Isochronous service so that time critical communications, such as voice and full-motion video, can share the facilities with less timecritical data communications.

REQUIREMENT

B-ISDN will be the service of choice for users requiring high speed switched digital service using the public

switched network. Internally, carriers who provide the public network will use B-ISDN as the underiying

technology for all communications Including Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS - the phone company's

term for ordinary switched voice communications.) There Is a requirement to include Broadband ISDN as a future IQOSS subnetwork technology.

STATUS

Most of the standards underlying B-ISDN have been developed.

PLAN

IGOSS organizations will work with the Lower Layer SIG of the OSE Implementors Workshop to insure that

implementation agreements are developed in a timely manner.

106
APPENDIX 5. APPLICATION PROGRAM INTERFACES

BACKGROUND

In the past, an application was written for a specific hardware/software platform and run at one or two

locations. Today, applications are typically run on many different computers, built by different vendors and

with different operating systems. It is critical that the increasing investment that is being made in information technology be protected by improving the independence of applications from specific underlying

hardware and software platforms. The standardization of selected Application Program Interfaces (APIs)

will significantly increase the portability of software by decreasing the need for platform-specific code

modules.

REQUIREMENTS

A requirement exists for a portable interface to current and future 081 applications, to common Application

Layer services, and to the services provided by the 081 Transport Layer.

At the Application Layer, APIs are currently required for the MHS, FTAM, and Directory Service applications

and will soon be required for applications such as Transaction Processing and Remote Database Access

when those applications are widely implemented. APIs are also required to provide a portable interface

to the common Application Layer services provided by the ACSE and ROSE Application Service Elements.

STATUS

APIs for the Message Handling Systems and Directory Service applications have already been standardized

by IEEE committees P1224 and P1 003.1 7 and their use is recommended in Section 3.1.2 of the IGOSS

when a portable interface to those OSI applications is required.

An FTAM API is being standardized by the IEEE PI 238 working group which will provide a portable

interface to high-level FTAM services (e.g., copy a file, delete a file). This API is scheduled to be

completed in 1994.

IEEE Committee PI 238 is standardizing the XOPEN ACSE/Presentation Service API. This API will permit

the developers of OSI and non-OSI applications to use a common upper layer platform for application-level

communications and focus development effort on the applications themselves. The XOPEN

ACSE/Presentation Service API is already supported by the many vendors.

A ROSE API is being standardized by a new IEEE working group which will provide a portable interface

to both high-level and low-level ROSE services. The standard will probably not be completed until the end

of 1993.

Transport APIs are being standardized by the IEEE PI 003. 12 working group which will provide a portable

interface to both high-level and low-level Transport services. The high-level interface is referred to as the

Simple Network Interface (SNI). The low-level interfaces will be based on Sockets (developed by U.C.- Berkeley) and XTI (developed by X/Open Company Limited). These standards are scheduled to be

completed in 1994.

To facilitate access to the Minimal 081 services, a new mapping to mOSI has been developed for XTI by

X/Open. The interface is called XTI/mOSI and is specified in Appendix H of the X/Open Transport Interface

(XTI). Since XTI provides an interface to a basic connection-oriented service, applications which use XTI

107
are easily ported to OSI using mOSI with the XTI/mOSI interface. Contact X/Open Company Ltd., 1010

El Camino Road, Suite 380, Menio Park, CA. 94025 for additional information.

PLAN

IGOSS representatives will work closely with the IEEE to insure that APIs are developed in a timely manner. A recent revision to the charter of the OSI Implementors Workshop (01W), now the Open Systems

Environment (OSE) Implementors Workshop allows this group to also participate in this work. IGOSS

representatives will try to insure that the work being done by the IEEE and OIW is coordinated. Additional

APIs will be referenced in the next version of the IGOSS; however, the use of standard APIs which meet

Federal and commercial needs should be encouraged as soon as they are available from a significant

number of vendors.

108
APPENDIX 6. DIRECTORY SERVICES CONFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

6.1 Directory User Agent Conformance Specifications

6.1.1 Supported Types and Levels of Authentication

The following "Authentication IVIodes" are used in IGOSS procurement categories to specify required

combinations of authentication type, level, and direction for a DUA.

Authentication IVIode 0

Authentication Mode 0 is supported by a DUA capable of transmitting DIrectoryBlndArgument without

credentials or with simplecredentlals containing either:

0 only the name component; or o the name component and an unprotected password.

A DUA supporting this Authentication Mode is capable of enabling a DSA, via the DAP, to perform

operations when there is no authentication requirement. It should be noted that authentication based on

unprotected passwords is not sufficient to satisfy a requirement, expressed in Basic Access Control or

Simplified Access Control, for simple authentication. Mode 0 authentication is adequate only when the

authentication level requirement in an access control list is specified as "none."

Authentication Mode 1

Authentication Mode 1 is supported by a DUA capable of transmitting DIrectoryBInd ARGUMENT with

SImpleCredentlals containing a protected password.

A DUA supporting this Authentication Mode is capable of enabling a DSA, contacted via the DAP, to perform simple authentication of the user based on a protected password.

Authentication Mode 2

Authentication Mode 2 is supported by a DUA capable of transmitting DIrectoryBInd ARGUMENT

containing StrongCredentlals. A DUA supporting this Authentication Mode is capable of enabling a DSA,

contacted via the DAP, to perform strong authentication of the user at the time when the DAP connection

is established.

Authentication Mode 3

Authentication Mode 3 is supported by a DUA capable of producing and transmitting the digitally-signed

variant of abstract operation arguments. The DUA shall use the private key of the user to generate the

digital signature, and shall include the name, time, and random components of SecurltyParameters within

CommonArguments.

A DUA supporting this Authentication Mode is capable of enabling a DSA, contacted via the DAP or DSP,

to perform strong authentication of the user each time an abstract operation, with signed arguments, is submitted to that DSA. This Authentication Mode enables any DSA involved in responding to a chained

or decomposed operation request to directly perform strong authentication of the user.

109
Authentication Mode 4

Authentication Mode 4 is supported by a DUA capable of receiving a signed result (an abstract operation

result and DirectoryBind RESULT) and validating the signature. A DUA supporting this Authentication

Mode is capable of performing strong authentication of the DSA that signed the result.

6.1.2 Miscellaneous Conformance Requirements for IGOSS DUAs

All conformant DUA products shall satisfy the following requirements.

1 . An IGOSS conformant DUA shall, as a minimum, support Authentication Modes 0 and 1

.

2. An IGOSS conformant DUA shall support character set requirements specified in Part 11, clause 7.1

of the Workshop Agreements.

3. An IGOSS conformant DUA shall perform normalization of protocol elements containing Universal

Coordinated Time according to the rule specified in Part 11, clause A.4.1 of the Workshop Agreements.

4. Certain 1993 extensions to the abstract operations must also be supported as follows:

a) "Administrative" DUAs shall support the extraAttributes extensions.

b) "Administrative" DUAs shall support the subentrles extension.

c) "Administrative" DUAs shall support the newSuperlor extension.

d) "Adminstrative" DUAs shall support the useAllasOnUpdate extension.

6.2 Directory Service Agent Conformance Specifications

6.2.1 DSA: Supported Types and Levels of Authentication

DSA Authentication Modes associated with DUA - DSA interaction are compatible with those defined

previously in this Appendix. For example, a DUA supporting Authentication Modes 0 and 1 can be used

with a DSA that supports Authentication Modes 0 and 1 . Also, a DUA supporting Mode 2 can be used with a DSA that supports Mode 2; a DUA supporting Mode 3 can be used with a DSA that supports Mode 3. A DUA that supports Authentication Mode 4 can be used with a DSA that supports Mode 4 and/or Mode

5.

This Appendix also defines the modes associated with DSA - DSA interaction that are used to perform

peer-entity authentication between DSAs cooperating in a chained operation. These modes are primarily

used to allow a responding DSA to determine whether each DSA in a chain is (via bilateral agreement)

trusted to properly handle chaining arguments, apply peer-entity authentication, and enforce access

controls. The measure of trustworthiness of a chain depends on: (1) the trustworthiness of the

Traceinformation; (2) whether each DSA listed in Tracelnformation is known to be trusted; and (3) what

mode of peer-entity authentication was performed by each DSA in the chain. The decision to procure a

particular authentication mode from among modes 4, 6, and 7 should be based on a security policy

establishing the level of confidence required before a chain is considered trustworthy. A trust domain in which each DSA uses mode 7 generally provides a relatively low level of confidence because it is based

on protected passwords and there is no integrity check on Tracelnformation. A trust domain in which

110
each DSA uses mode 4 generally provides a medium level of confidence because even though strong

authentication is being performed at bind time, there is no integrity check on Tracelnformatlon. Mode 6

generally provides the highest level of confidence because it uses strong authentication in the form of signed operation arguments to provide an Integrity check on each instance of Tracelnformatlon.

The following Authentication Modes are used in IGOSS procurement categories to specify required

combinations of authentication type, level, and direction for a DSA.

Authentication Mode 0

Authentication Mode 0 is supported by a DSA capable of performing user authentication, based on the

DIrectoryBInd ARGUMENT, using SimpieCredentlals containing either: the name component only; or the

name component and an unprotected password.

For the purpose of enforcing access control (Basic Access Control or Simplified Access Control), the DSA

shall associate this mode with AuthentlcationLevel "none" (see definition of AuthenticatlonLevel clause

15 of [CCITT 38]). In other words, for the purpose of enforcing access control, this mode is considered

to provide no justification for believing that the purported user is, in fact, the actual user. This mode is the

weakest form of user authentication and is highly vulnerable to masquerading and replay attacks.

Conformance to this mode also requires that when a DSA (supporting the DSP initiator role) initiates a

chained operation and has successfully authenticated the user under mode 0, that DSA shall set the

AuthenticatlonLevel element of ChalnlngArguments to "none."

Authentication Mode 1

Authentication Mode 1 is supported by a DSA capable of performing user authentication, based on

DIrectoryBInd ARGUMENT, using SimpieCredentlals containing a protected password.

For the purpose of enforcing access control (Basic Access Control or Simplified Access Control), the DSA

shall associate this mode with AuthenticatlonLevel "simple" (see definition of AuthenticatlonLevel in clause 15 of [CCITT 38]).

Conformance to this mode also requires that when a DSA (supporting the DSP initiator role) initiates a

chained operation and has successfully authenticated the user under mode 1, the DSA shall set the

AuthenticatlonLevel element of ChalnlngArguments to "simple." If the Initiating DSA does not authenticate the user under mode 1 before chaining the operation, the DSA shall omit AuthenticatlonLevel

within ChalnlngArguments.

Authentication Mode 2

Authentication Mode 2 is supported by a DSA capable of performing strong authentication of the user at the time when a DAP connection is established. The authentication is based on StrongCredentlals

received in the DIrectoryBInd ARGUMENT.

For the purpose of enforcing access control (Basic Access Control or Simplified Access Control), a DSA

shall associate this mode with AuthenticatlonLevel "strong" (see definition of AuthentlcationLevel In clause 15 of [CCITT 38]).

Ill
Conformance to this mode also requires that when a DSA (supporting the DSP initiator role) initiates a

chained operation and has successfully authenticated the user under mode 2, the DSA shall set the

AuthentlcationLevei element of ChalningArguments to "strong."

Authentication Mode 3

Authentication Mode 3 is supported by a DSA capable of performing strong authentication of the user by

verifying the digital signature on the abstract operation arguments and checking for replay attack.

For the purpose of enforcing access control (Basic Access Control or Simplified Access Control), a DSA

shall associate this mode with AuthentlcationLevei "strong" (see definition of AuthentlcationLevei in clause 15of [CCITT38]).

Conformance to this mode also requires that when a DSA (supporting the DSP initiator role) initiates a

chained operation and has successfully authenticated the user under mode 3, the DSA shall set the

AuthentlcationLevei element of ChalningArguments to "strong."

Authentication Mode 4

Authentication Mode 4 is supported by a DSA capable of performing two-way peer-entity strong

authentication at bind time when a DAP, DSP, DISP or DOP association is established.

Authentication Mode 4 is supported by a DSA capable of:

1 . validating a DSA's signature, including detection of replay attack, as received in StrongCredentials

of a bind argument;

, 2. digitally signing the Token in StrongCredentials transmitted in a bind result;

3. digitally signing the Token in StrongCredentials transmitted in a bind argument.

Authentication Mode 5

Authentication Mode 5 is supported by a DSA capable of producing and transmitting the digitally signed

varient of abstract operation results. This capability enables origin authentication and integrity checking

of the results. The signing DSA shall include the name, time, and random components of SecurltyParameters within CommonArguments.

Authentication Mode 6

Authentication Mode 6 is supported by a DSA capable of performing all of the functions defined in mode

5 and, in addition, is capable of: (1) verifying a DSA's digital signature on abstract operation arguments;

and (2) applying its own signature to abstract operation arguments in preparation for chaining the operation

to another DSA. The signing DSA shall include the name, time, and random components of SecurltyParameters within CommonArguments. Verification of signature includes checking for replay

attack.

Authentication Mode 7

Authentication Mode 7 is supported by a DSA capable of performing two-way peer-entity simple protected

authentication at bind time when a DSP, DISP, or DOP association is established.

112
Authentication Mode 7 is supported by a DSA capable of:

1 . validating a DSA's protected password, as received in StmpleCredentlals of a bind argument;

2. transmitting its protected password in SimpleCredentials of a bind result; and

3. transmitting its protected password in SimpleCredentials of a bind argument.

6.2.2 DSA: Supported Attributes and Object Classes

An IGOSS confomnant DSA shall support all Selected Attribute Types defined in clause 5 of [ISO 75]. A

conformant DSA shall support all attribute syntaxes defined in clause 6 of [ISO 75]. A conformant DSA

shall support all matching rules defined in clause 7 of [CCITT 43].

A conformant DSA that supports any form of strong authentication shall support the fbllowing attribute types

described in [CCITT 39]: UserCertlflcate, CACertlflcate, CrossCertlflcatePaIr,

CertlflcateRevocatlonLlst, and AuthorltyRevocatlonLlst. A conformant DSA shall support

UserPassword described in [CCITT 39].

In addition, a conformant DSA shall be configurable to allow new attribute types to be defined by the DSA

administrator. Extensibility of supported attribute types shall include the following features:

o new types may be defined in terms of syntax described in clause 6 of [CCITT 43];

0 new types may be defined in terms of new syntax where:

1 . the syntax is one of the following: Integer, Null, Boolean, Enumerated, Bit String, Octet String, object

identifier. Distinguished Name, Case Exact String, Case Ignore String, Numeric String, Printable String,

UTC Time, and Telephone Number;

2. the new syntax is an ASN.1 structured type (i.e., SET, SEQUENCE, SET OF, SEQUENCE OF, and

CHOICE), possibly including tags, where each component uses one of the syntax forms listed in the

previous item;

3. the matching rule associated with a locally defined type may be defined using any of the rules described in clause 7 of [CCITT 43].

An IGOSS confomnant DSA shall support all Selected Object Classes defined in clauses 6.1 through 6.13

of [CCITT 44]. A DSA which supports any form of strong authentication shall support strongAuthentlcatlonUser and certiflcatlonAuthorlty as defined in clauses 6.14 and 6.15 of [CCITT 44].

An IGOSS conformant DSA shall be configurable to allow new object classes or subclasses to be defined

by the DSA administrator. Extensibility of supported object classes shall include the following features:

o new object classes may be defined to be either abstract, structural, or auxiliary;

o a new object class may be a subclass of any class described in [CCITT 44] or it may be a subclass

of a locally defined class.

o a new object class may be defined in terms of any combination of attribute types described

in [CCITT 43] and locally defined attribute types.

113
6.2.3 DSA: Support For Name Bindings

An IGOSS conformant DSA shall be configurable to allow the DSA administrator to define the complete

set of allowed name bindings. Each of the name bindings described in clause 7 of [CCITT 43] shall be

implemented.

6.2.4 DSA: Support For Hierarchical Attributes

Hierarchical attributes work in conjunction with the extendedFllter feature to provide a mechanism for grouping attributes such that the group has a generic type that can be used to retrieve the entire group.

For example, the generic type "telephoneNumber" could be defined to include subtypes such as work

phone number, organizational phone number, and fax number. The generic type can be used in a filter to return any of the subtypes. The support of hierarchical attributes is mandatory. Hierarchical attribute types are described in clause 1 1 .4 of [CCITT 38].

6.2.5 DSA: Support For Collective Attributes

Collective attributes provide a convenient way to specify an attribute which is common to many entries. For

example, all the employees of a given organization might have the same fax number. Using collective

attributes, the attribute can be entered into a single subentry whose scope includes all the entries to which

it applies; this might be more efficient than entering the fax number into each employee's entry. Support

for collective attributes is mandatory. Collective attributes are described in clause 11.4 of [CCITT 38].

6.2.6 DSA: Support For Operational Attributes

All IGOSS conformant DSAs shall support operational attributes associated with the supported access control scheme(s). All IGOSS conformant DSAs shall support createTlmestamp,

modlfyTlmestamp, creatorsName, and modifiersName.

6.2.7 DSA: Capability To Support Root Naming Context

All IGOSS conformant DSAs shall be capable of supporting the root context, as specified for first-level DSAs in [CCITT 41].

6.2.8 DSA: Support For Access Control

The 1993 edition of the Directory standard provides two access control mechanisms: Simplified Access

Control (SAC) and Basic Access Control (BAC). An IGOSS conformant DSA shall support

Simplified Access Control. Support for Basic Access Control is optional. A class 2 subtree specification, as defined in Part 11, clause 8.10 of the Workshop Agreements shall be supported. When BAC is implemented, the DSA shall provide a means whereby a superior authority can positively control the

maximum precedence that may be assigned within an ACIItem by a subordinate authority.

The DSA shall determine if a chain is trustworthy before using it to return any abstract operation result or

error result that contains information subject to access control. The DSA shall determine if the chain is trustworthy before believing the AuthenticatlonLevel received in ChalnlngArguments; when the chain

is found to be untnjstworlhy, the DSA shall, for the purpose of making access control decisions, assign the

level of "none" to the requesting user. When ChalnlngArguments do not include AuthenticatlonLevel the

DSA shall assign the level of "none" to the requesting user.

114
When the DSA supports only one of the modes 4, 5, or 7, it shall use that mode when determining if the

chain Is trustworthy. When the DSA is configurable in this regard, it shall use the mode (4, 5, or 1)

designated by the system administrator when determining if the chain is trustworthy.

6.2.9 Miscellaneous Conformance Requirements For All IGOSS DSAs

The following miscellaneous requirements shall be satisfied by all IGOSS DSAs:

1. Adhere to the pragmatic constraints specified in Part 11, clause 7 of the Workshop Agreements;

2. Adhere to the requirements in Part 1 1 , Annex A of the Workshop Agreements regarding

Maintenance of Attribute Syntaxes;

3. Adhere to the requirement to support Session Version 2 as described in Part 11, clause 10.2 of the

Workshop Agreements.

6.2.10 Miscellaneous Conformance Requirements For IGOSS Cooperative DSAs

The following miscellaneous requirements shall be satisfied by all IGOSS cooperative DSAs:

1 . Be able to carry out name resolution and search continuation for an alias whose dereference points

to an entry held outside the DSA as described in Part 11, clause 9.1.5 of the Workshop Agreements.

2. Be able to carry out simple authentication of a user whose entry is outside the authenticating DSA

as described in Part 11, clause 9.1.7 of the Workshop Agreements.

3. Adhere to requirements regarding the handling of Traceinformatlon specified in Part 1 1 , clause 9.2.2

of the Workshop Agreements.

4. Adhere to the requirement regarding propagation of signed arguments specified in Part 1 1 , clause

9.2.3 of the Workshop Agreements.

5. Adhere to the requirements regarding referrals and chaining specified in Part 1 1 , clause 9.2.4 of the

Workshop Agreements with the following proviso:

The first paragraph of Part 11, clause 9.2.4 of the Workshop Agreements states conditions under which a chaining DSA does not act on a referral. For the purpose of this specification, the conditions include

the following:

0 the returnToDUA element of DSAReferral indicates the referral is not to be acted on; or 0 administrative limitations or service policies prevent the DSA from acting on the referral;

6. Adhere to underlying services requirements specified in Part 11, clause 10 of the Workshop

Agreements.

7. Implement the Directory Information Shadowing Protocol as described in Part 11, clause 8.1 1 of the

Workshop Agreements. A class 2 unit of replication, as described in Part 11, clause 8.11.3 of the

Workshop Agreements, shall be supported.

115
6.2.11 Miscellaneous Conformance Requirements for IGOSS Solitary DSAs.

A Solitary DSA product shall not implement shadowing.

116
APPENDIX 7. ACRONYMS

Associaiion ooniroi oervic© tiGmGni

AUMU Administration Domain

Ab Application Entity

Arl Authority Format Identifier A MC 1 ANol American National Standards Institute A Dl Arl Application Programming Interface ARM Aidrrri neponing runciion

ARR AffnWl itac^ f/*\r C3at*\ff'AO Anting C3/*\lof!/*\mrHl^incN Auriouies lor nepreseniing neiaiionsnips

ACC Application Service Element

rtolN a<;m Ah\ofro/^ d/ntnv Mrtto+!rtr» MDSxraci oyniax Noiaiion

RAP Dasic Access uoniroi

DDI DHI Basic Rate Interface

PAD ouiiipumi rtiucu ucbiyii

oompuier Aiueo ivianuiaciuring

PP Connect Confirm

PPIXT Consultative Committee for International Telegraphy and Telephony

PPD oommiimeni, ooncurrency ana necovery

PPTA1 A uenirai uompuier ana i eiecommunications Agency

pn uomminee uran

Configuration Management

oompuxer orapnics ivieiaiiie PI V-'vJIII lc;OllUI 11(700 INclWOllS OclVICc

PI T<; oonneciioniess i ranspon oervice

PI 1 II /^rtrt noofi rtnliiie o 1 lrM^£ir 1 Qv/or* wOlllltJOuOllltJbo UppfcJI LdytJI PKJIID OMIr Common Management Information Protocol

PH/IIO UMIo Common Management Information Service

ppjmq OWINO v^onnecuon x^rienieu iNeiworK oervioe

PP»C L/Uo Corporation for Open Systems

PP>0 AP L-anaaian upen oystems Application L/riiena

PP»TC L/VJ 1 o L/Onneciion vjrieniea i ranspon oervice

PD uonneci nequest

POOoAA Canadian Standards Association

/->OK/l A /PR oarrier oense, Muiiipie Access wiin ooiiision ueieciion

O 1 oo/NM European Community Testing Service for Network Management

UAM urau Amenameni

UAr r\ A D Directory Access Protocol

npc Data Circuit-terminating Equipment

Uto uata tncrypiion oianaara

UrI Uor rormat laeniiTier DFR Document Filing and Retrieval

DIS Draft International Standard

DISP Directory Information Shadowing protocol

DIT Directory Information Tree

DMI Definitions of Management Information

DOP Directory Operational Binding Management Protocol

DPA Document Printing Application

DQDB Distributed Queue Dual Bus

117
DR Disconnect Request

DoA Directory Service Agent

r\OD Uor Directory System Protocol

Dor Domain Specific Part DTE Data Terminal Equipment

DUA Directory User Agent

EDI Electronic Data Interchange

tUlrAU 1 Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport

blA Electronic Industries Association

[— [-) 1 brni Electric Power Research Institute ERMF Event Report Management Function

ES End System

tb-lb End System-Intermediate System

r— p\ 1 FDDI Fiber Distributed Data Interface

rlPo Federal Information Processing Standard

CPA KA r 1 AM File Transfer, Access, and Management

GiNMr Government Network Management Profile Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile HDLC High Level Data Link Control

HMI Human Machine Interface

lA Implementation Agreement

ICD International Code Designator

1 P\ 1 IDI Initial Domain Identifier IDP Initial Domain Part lUnr inier-uorriain nouiing rroiocoi

iniernaxionai bieciroiecnnicai commission

Ibbt Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

IGES Initial Graphic Exchange Specification

IQOSS Industry/Government Open Systems Specification IIW ISDN Implementors Workshop

1 K IT A n INTAP Interoperability Technology Association for Information Processing

IPM Interpersonal Messing

IDIn Information Retrieval

lo miermeaiaie oystem

lo International Standard

IS-IS Intermediate System- Intermediate System

loDN Integrated Services Digital Network

ISO International Organization for Standardization

ISP International Standardized Profile IT Information Technology

JTC Joint Technical Committee

LAN Local Area Network

LAPB Link Access Procedure B

LAPD Link Access Procedure D

LCF Low Cost Fiber

LCF Log Control Function

LLC Logical Link Control

MAC Media Access Control

MAIN Meiropoiiian Area NeiworK

MAP Manufacturing Automation Protocol

MHS Message Handling Systems

MIB Management Information Base

118
h M IT MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MMr Muiiimooe riDer

MMo ivianuiacTuring Messaging opeciTication

MU Managea UDject

mUol Minimal uoi

MPMC Multipeer/M ulticast Mo Message Store

MTA Message Transfer Agent

M 1 o Message Transfer System

IN Do iNaiionai Bureau ot otanoaros

In»-^0 iNmionai ooiTiniunicaiions oysi©m

MIQT INIO 1 r^jaiionai insTiiuie ot oTanaaras ana i ecnnoiogy

Kill 1 ^ NIUF North American ISDN Users Forum

NLSP Network Layer Security Protocol InM Network Mangement

NMF Network Mangement Forum

MP A 1 iNeiworK rroiocoi Aaaress inTorrnaiion MC; AP INyiWOriv OGrVIOt? MOCCbb r OIIU

\JUr\

<~\I\A/ UlvV uot impiemeniors worKsnop

OMr Object Management Function

OMQ Object Management Group

OMNI Open Management Interoperability

vJot ijpens oysiems tnvironmenT

Oor Open Software Foundation

Uol upen oysTems interconneciion

prAUA r» Packet Assembler/Disassembler

rriysiCai vyonnecTion Managerneni

pr»i 1 rrotocoi uata unit

PICS Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement

Dl D PLr Packet Level Protocol

rMU Physical Media Dependent

r Mr rarameter Managemeni rrames ppp rrr Point to Point Protocol

DDI rnl Primary Rate Interface

rnMU rrivaie Management uomain

rU 1 b Plain Old Telephone Service

p\/r^ r Vo Permanent Virtual Circuit

RDA Remote Database Access

RUN Relative Distinguished Name

HrO Request for Comments

HM 1 ning Management

[—) o cr ROoc Remote Operation Service Element

H 1 ot HeiiaDie i ransTer oervice tiemenx

SAC Simplified Access Control

oARF Security Alarm Reporting Function

OUINo oSUUIc L'cllcl INtJlWOIK Oyblclll

SE Security Envelope

SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language

SHA Secure Hash Algorithm

SIG Special Interest Group

119
SMF Systems Management Function

SMF Single Mode Fiber

SMT Station Management

SNARE Subnetworl< Address Resolution Entities SNI Single Network Interface

SONET Synchronous Optical Network

SPAG Standards Promotion and Application Group

SQL Structured Query Language

SSL Standard Security Label

STEP Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data

STMF State Management Function

SVC Switched Virtual Circuit

TBITS Treasury Board Information Technology Standard

TLSP Transport Layer Security Protocol

TOP Technical and Office Protocols

TP Transaction Processing

TPDU Transport Protocol Data Unit

TPSU Transaction Processing Service Unit

U-ASE User Application Service Element

UA User Agent

UAC User Advisory Council

UCA Utility Communication Architecture

Ul Unix International

- VT Virtual Terminal

WAN Wide Area Network

WG Working Group

XTI X-Open Transport Layer Interface

ir U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1994 — 300-568/01+033

120
ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PUBLICATIONS ON

COMPUTER SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

Dear Sir:

Please add my name to the announcement hst of new publications to be issued in the series: National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 500-.

Name

Company

Address

City State Zip Code

(Notification key N-503)

mJL kj X Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology -Reports NIST

research and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which

the Institute is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer

sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time

are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs.

Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs — Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the

Institute's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks — Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes)

developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies.

Special Publications — Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual

reports, and other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket

cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series — Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to

physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others

engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series — Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical

properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed

under a worldwide program coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard

Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data

(JPCRD) is published bimonthly for NIST by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the

American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from

ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series — Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building

materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the

durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes — Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive

in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards — Developed under procedures published by the Department of

Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish

nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis

for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program

in support of the efforts of private-sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series — Practical information, based on NIST research and experience,

covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NIST publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

Order the following NIST publications— FIPS and NISTIRs—from the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB) —Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves

as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by

NIST pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended.

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315,

dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NIST Interagency Reports (NISTIR)— A special series of interim or final reports on work

performed by NIST for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general,

initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300