Erik,
I can understand why this would cause problems in the X.400 world but
I don't see why it should be frightening from the Internet point of
view. It means you don't have to do anything to the address when
going from 822 to 400 and going the other way it seems easy enough to
tell whether the address needs to be translated. Sure the interface
become a little more complex in the 400 to 822 direction but it seems
like a tiny price to pay to get reasonably convenient addresses in the
X.400 world.
This proposal is even more simple and radical than my previous
favorite, which would have been to just allow
/C=Internet/CN=rfc822(_at_)addresses(_dot_)allowed(_dot_)here/
in the X.400 world.
Donald
From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik(_dot_)Huizer(_at_)surfnet(_dot_)nl>
To: IESG <iesg(_at_)cnri(_dot_)reston(_dot_)va(_dot_)us>,
ietf-822(_at_)dimacs(_dot_)rutgers(_dot_)edu
Organisation: SURFnet bv
Address: Cluetinckborch, P.O. Box 19035, 3501 DA Utrecht, NL
Phone: +31 30 310290
Telefax: +31 30 340903
Although the idea (help save X.400 :-) is good, the proposal below is
frightening, and will complicate both X.400 and RFC-1327 (gatewaying to
RFC-822). I have send out queries on how to intercept this and am going to
try to get an "IETF" point of view into this. Even if you do not think that
worthwile the proposal should at least make you laugh. Jacobs analysis below
seems correct.
Erik
------- Forwarded Message
Date: 11 Nov 93 16:52:39 +0100
From: Jacob Palme DSV <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se>
To: iso-messaging-group(_at_)gec-b(_dot_)rl(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk, mhsnews
<mhsnews(_at_)ics(_dot_)uci(_dot_)edu>
Subject: Extending X.400 with Internet e-mail addresses
A few days ago I received a proposal put forward by the U.S. National
ISO Body (=ANSI) to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 18. The proposal wants to extend
the X.400 naming scheme to add a new kind of permitted name in X.400.
The new name is called "Internet E-mail Address Format". Such an address
can consist of one internet-email-address, coded as a teletex string
(T.61 string) plus, conditionally, a country name combined with an ADMD,
or a country name combined with a PRMD, or domain-defined-attributes.
Domain-defined-attributes are only allowed if an ADMD or a PRMD is given.
The proposal is very interesting, but I lack the following:
(a) A definition of the allowed syntax within an Internet E-mail address.
(b) An extension to the X.400 apppendix on how to print OR-addresses on
business cards to cater for the new name format.
The advantages with this proposal are:
(1) Easier gatewaying between X.400 and Internet
(2) The possibillity of using Internet names also within X.400,
to get a neater naming scheme
The disadvantages, as I see it, are
(3) The OR-address format becomes even more complex
(4) Interaction problems with older X.400 systems
Question on the proposal is if it is really necessary to extend
Internet addresses with country code, ADMD, PRMD and Domain-defined
attributes. By allowing these, even if they are optional, the whole
idea of giving X.400 the simple name formats of Internet are
defeated!
------- End of Forwarded Message