Hi All -- We can only achieve real convergence if we really converge.
From L.Willms message Sat, 13 Nov 93 08:00 EST:
}
}I am looking forward to a real convergence of X.400 and RFC-based e-mail.
Almost converging is not converging!
So, I must repeat... X.400 should simply use RFC822 address forms as
they are, without modification, or addition of attributes that are
required in X.400, but not required in the INTERNET.
There should be absolutely no difference between an INTERNET address
when sen in the RFC821/822 or in X.400.
Of course you cannot tell what country nma.com is in!
You could not tell how to get to nma.hb.ca.us either, since knowing
the country and state and city initials does not tell you anything
about how to get mail to my host. For all you really know,
nma.hb.ca.us might be located in Norway.
In my case, if I really had an address of nma.hb.ca.us, you would have
to get the address of my mailforwarder (which just happens to be
isc.usi.edu) from a DNS MX record for routing to my mailbox.
X.400 just needs to use INTERNET routing technology, which is working
just fine all around the globe. It is here now, and it works. It can
work for X.400 just as well as for SMTP if X.400 uses SMTP addresses.
Adding the C=, A=, and P= routing information into the X.400 version
of the INTERNET address only perpetuates the failure of X.400 to do
the right thing about routing. And it makes a mess of mappings.
As I noted earlier, by just using RFC822 addresses as they are now in
the INTERNET, you get free tchnology for mapping RFC822 address forms
into X.400 name forms.
I have long advocated that X.400 should simply adopt RFC822 addresses.
My proposal is to handle this as a Defect Report, on the basis that
someone forgot to include RFC822 adress types in the beginning;-)...
Of course, if this is accepted, it will break the PTT Monopoly on
X.400 Address Assignments.
Cheers...\Stef