bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (07/12/90)
RFC822 is to RFC1036 as X.400 is to ??? (or, alternatively phrased,) mail is to news as MHS IPM is to ??? I see in the Blue Book X.400/7.4 that "One MS [Message Store] acts on behalf of only one user (one O/R address), i.i. it does not provide a common or shared MS capability to several users." In X.400/14 (Distribution Lists in MHS) and in X.402/7.1.3 it appears, by omission of other possibilities, as if all conferences will use (possibly nested) distribution lists. Or does the "delivery to UAs" function in Figure 14/X.400 allow for common MS access? X.400/15.4 "MHS Security Capabilities" include several that seem problematic for news - particularly proof of delivery, flow confidentiality, and message sequence integrity, which raise architectural issues with news' flood transport algorithm. The other authentication, content confidentiality, and content integrity matters are at least workable. MT (Message Transfer service) non-delivery indication seems like something to avoid in a news-like environment, given the rampant fluidity of news transport connectivity. I note with some relief that the language of X.402/7.1.3 leaves room: "...a user can convey information objects to pre-specified groups of users...". I would interpret that inclusively, with the "specified group" meaning a distributed flood-based non-presubscribed conference as well. But X.402/7.2.3 says that "Each MS is associated with one UA". I'm not familiar enough with the language and conventions of the Red and Blue Books to know where to look next, or even to be sure I've found what I'm looking for. Should I look more closely at X.402, X.411, X.413, or somewhere else that distributed conferencing issues have been considered? Has ISO/CCITT arrived at an alternative to the current news technology, or will the ISO world run on the moral equivalent of the distribution lists that have been largely discarded in the Internet world? Any pointers are appreciated.