One last message.
In my opinion, it's too early to define the X.400 types -- the
definitions in RFC-XXX should be removed.
If they're going to stay, we've got a lot of arguing ahead of us. I
feel, for example, that carrying IA5Text in it's ASN.1 form is just
plain silly -- it should be mapped to text.
These types should be defined by the people defining the next
X.400<-->822++ RFC (based on 1148) and can be added to the set of
registered types through the RFC process and by adding them to the
"Assigned Numbers" register maintained by ISI.
Pete