mikej@dasys1.UUCP (Mike Johnston) (08/14/88)
Where can one find the X.400 "standard" documented?
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
! Michael R. Johnston - Franchise Data Specialist , Career Employment Svc.!
! UUCP: {cmcl2!phri,uunet} dasys1!cpmain!mikej ATNET: mikej@cpmain.uucp!
! PHONENET: (516) 285-7730 "....but it was working just yesterday......" !
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/15/88)
dts@cloud9.UUCP (Daniel Senie) writes:
-> There is a standard called X.400, which is the Message Handling Systems
-> standard. It allows dissimilar machines to exchange and transport mail.
I thought that was what RFC-822 was all about. Silly me.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net
"The connector is the network"andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (08/16/88)
In article <3437@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >dts@cloud9.UUCP (Daniel Senie) writes: >> There is a standard called X.400, which is the Message Handling Systems >> standard. It allows dissimilar machines to exchange and transport mail. >I thought that was what RFC-822 was all about. Silly me. Yes, silly you. They're looking for "future" standards, not standards that have been used for many years. If it predates the vax, it doesn't count. Does anyone how Europe's bold leap into the 60s a couple of summers ago came out? (ISO was advertising an experimental mail system between dissimilar hosts, probably based on an X.400 predecessor. We stupid Americans had been doing that for years.) -andy UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@polya.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) (08/16/88)
As I begin, I would like to state that I am neither an expert, nor
VERY well read on this subject. The following is the result of the
short period (short for what this subject requires) I spent delving
into this subject.
First, RFC 821 and 822 are industry standards. X.400 is an international
standard being produced by CCITT and ISO.
The technical specifications can be obtained from OmniCom Publications (???).
I don't currently have the address, but I may be able to locate it quickly
enough. They're somewhere in Virginia.
X.400 is actually a series of recommendations made by CCITT concerning
the format of electronic messages and their subsequent transmission.
It references numerous other recommendations and relies heavily
on the Abstract Syntax Notation 1 (ANS.1). If anyone can tell how
to obtain information on ANS.1, I'd be greatful. I seem to have missed
it in my search.
A (possibly incomplete) list of recommendations for X.400 include:
X.400, X.402, X.403, X.407, X.408, X.411, X.413, X.419,
X.420 etc. etc. etc..
In addition, you'll need recommendations X.208, X.217, X.218, X.219 and
probably a host of others. I didn't have that much time to spend on
it and eventual gave up (for now).
The 1984 release is called the "Red Book". The 1988 release, called the
"Blue Book," is not currently available (or wasn't the last time I heard,
which was about two months ago). You shouldn't expect to see it until
sometime next year. A draft version is out, but only to selected groups.
The "Blue Book" is MUCH more extensive than the "Red Book". Also, the
authors seem to have taken a perverse pleasure in making it as unreadable
as possible (in my opinion).
I had a lot of hope for X.400. However, after hearing some comments
("X.400 is the SNA of electronic mail"), I'm no longer sure.
Jon L. Griffeth
jon@chiron.UUCP
P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would
again be greatful. OSI is the basis for an international networking
standard. Anyone wanting to learn about X.400 should learn this as
well.jrmacmillan@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John R. MacMillan) (08/16/88)
In article <3611@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: |Does anyone how Europe's bold leap into the 60s a couple of summers |ago came out? (ISO was advertising an experimental mail system |between dissimilar hosts, probably based on an X.400 predecessor. We |stupid Americans had been doing that for years.) Keep in mind that they don't really have much choice; if they come up with something and then "you stupid Americans" do it differently, they are essentially steam-rollered into changing. -- John R. MacMillan jrmacmillan@dragon.waterloo.edu If the universe fits, wear it. ...!watmath!dragon!jrmacmillan
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (08/16/88)
jrmacmillan@watdragon.waterloo.edu writes:
Keep in mind that they don't really have much choice; if they come up
with something and then "you stupid Americans" do it differently, they
are essentially steam-rollered into changing.
How is that? RFC821 and RFC822 are dated August 1982, which predates
(I believe) X.400. Within the US, RFC822 is quoted as The Truth of
Mail Formats rather often, but it's being somewhat ignored (it seems)
by X.400 people.
Someone across the cubicle wall just speculated the X.400 constitutes
an extreme case of NIH syndrome.
Food for thought, and
open to correction,
--Karldavidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (08/17/88)
There are several standards, and probably all will be used for at least
the next few years.
RFC822 - specifies a message content (header and text)
SMTP - a protocol for connecting two machines for text transfer.
(Simple Mail Transfer Protocol)
X.400 - another content specification
Many sites speak SMTP and RFC822, X.400 is less popular in the USA, and
I have reason to believe that there are a lot of buggy implementations
which won't talk to one another.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -meguy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (08/17/88)
> jrmacmillan@watdragon.waterloo.edu writes: > Keep in mind that they don't really have much choice; if they come up > with something and then "you stupid Americans" do it differently, they > are essentially steam-rollered into changing. > > How is that? RFC821 and RFC822 are dated August 1982, which predates > (I believe) X.400. I think the problem here is that Mr. MacMillan completely misunderstood the comment from Andy Freeman: |Does anyone how Europe's bold leap into the 60s a couple of summers |ago came out? (ISO was advertising an experimental mail system |between dissimilar hosts, probably based on an X.400 predecessor. We |stupid Americans had been doing that for years.) Mr. Freeman's comment wasn't that "we stupid Americans" had somehow "steam-rollered" Europe into picking up something that we "did differently". His comment was that "we stupid Americans" had come up with a mail system that worked between dissimilar hosts, long before ISO had ever done so - in fact, the Arpanet supported this *before* the advent of RFC821 and RFC822 - and that *ISO* had "done it differently". The result may well be some "steam-rollering" to get the SMTP users to change, thus somewhat *reversing* the situation Mr. MacMillan appears to be complaining about.
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (08/17/88)
In article <145@chiron.UUCP> jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) writes: > If anyone can tell how >to obtain information on ANS.1, I'd be greatful. I seem to have missed >it in my search. I believe ANS.1 is described in X.409, "Message Handling Systems: Presentation Transfer Syntax and Notation". However, it never actually seems to use the phrase "Abstract Syntax Notation", nor the abbreviation ANS.1. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
marc@apollo.COM (Marc Gibian) (08/17/88)
Having spent some significant time working with mail systems, and most recently X.400,
I feel I need to put my two cents into this discussion.
The two major distinctions between the familiar RFC822 mail standard and X.400 to me
seems to be:
1) Technology - X.400 uses a technological approach to information exchange that is
very different from that used by RFC822. The X.400 approach is closely matched
to the facilities and concepts provided by the OSI model.
2) Functionality - X.400 defines a very robust message passing capability that addresses
the current and future needs of the computing community. It incorporates facilities
for dealing with many message contents, not just simple text, acknowledging that
mail is no longer made up on simple text. In this world of graphics, voice mail,
and complex structured documents, it is very nice to have a standard that provides
a path to providing a mail facility that permits exchange of these things.
One final comment. X.400 is complex, and not the easiest to read. But I have found it
to be one of the better on the international standards in terms of readability,
completeness, and extensibility. I look forward enthusiastically to using an
X.400 based mail system and only wish it would arrive sooner.
Marc S. Gibian
email: marc@apollo.com or marc@apollo.uucpjrmacmillan@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John R. MacMillan) (08/17/88)
In article <64445@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: |I think the problem here is that Mr. MacMillan completely misunderstood the |comment from Andy Freeman: | ||Does anyone how Europe's bold leap into the 60s a couple of summers ||ago came out? (ISO was advertising an experimental mail system ||between dissimilar hosts, probably based on an X.400 predecessor. We ||stupid Americans had been doing that for years.) So I did. I thought he meant "they're doing it the _same way_ we did it years ago", and felt that this was not too surprising. I didn't know that the ISO had come up with something different (which seems incredibly silly until you remember that we're talking about a committee :-) |Mr. Freeman's comment wasn't that "we stupid Americans" had somehow |"steam-rollered" Europe into picking up something that we "did differently". I think I've been misunderstood too; I didn't mean that the US actively coerces the rest of the world, merely that it is such a large user/ producer/developer/etc that the rest of the world had better go along or they'll lose out. -- John R. MacMillan jrmacmillan@dragon.waterloo.edu If the universe fits, wear it. ...!watmath!dragon!jrmacmillan
mohsen@iconnect.UUCP (Mohsen Banan) (08/18/88)
In article <145@chiron.UUCP> jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) writes: > > .... >The 1984 release is called the "Red Book". The 1988 release, called the >"Blue Book," is not currently available (or wasn't the last time I heard, >which was about two months ago). You shouldn't expect to see it until >sometime next year. A draft version is out, but only to selected groups. > >The "Blue Book" is MUCH more extensive than the "Red Book". Also, the >authors seem to have taken a perverse pleasure in making it as unreadable >as possible (in my opinion). > >I had a lot of hope for X.400. However, after hearing some comments >("X.400 is the SNA of electronic mail"), I'm no longer sure. > >Jon L. Griffeth >jon@chiron.UUCP > >P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would >again be greatful. OSI is the basis for an international networking >standard. Anyone wanting to learn about X.400 should learn this as >well. I have read a few books on the subject. My favorit is: Standards for Open Systems Interconnection. McGraw-Hill Book Company ISBN 0-07-035119-8 Authors: Keith G. Knightson Terry Knowles John Larmouth In general my problems with many books on this subject is that I don't trust them. Most often the best source is the IS standards themselves. If you are just getting started, ISO7498 (X.200) is the best starting place. My two cents about X.400: It is real. It is here now. It addresses all of today's needs and some of tomorrow's. We'll see its wide spread use in the US in early 1990s. P.S. When are the Blue Books going to be ready?
kehres@tis.llnl.gov (Tim Kehres) (08/18/88)
In article <25924@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: : > I believe ANS.1 is described in X.409, "Message Handling Systems: > Presentation Transfer Syntax and Notation". However, it never > actually seems to use the phrase "Abstract Syntax Notation", nor the > abbreviation ANS.1. ASN.1 has evolved from 1984 X.409. The most current documents that I have on ASN.1 are ISO 8824 (DIS) and ISO 8825 (DIS). The specification of ASN.1 will no longer be part of the X.400 series of recommendations. Tim Kehres
nigel@modcomp.UUCP (Nigel Gamble) (08/18/88)
in article <145@chiron.UUCP>, jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) says: > X.400 is actually a series of recommendations made by CCITT concerning > the format of electronic messages and their subsequent transmission. > It references numerous other recommendations and relies heavily > on the Abstract Syntax Notation 1 (ANS.1). If anyone can tell how > to obtain information on ANS.1, I'd be greatful. I seem to have missed > it in my search. Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) is part of the Presentation Layer (layer 6) of the ISO/OSI 7 layer comms. protocol stack. The relevant ISO standards are: DIS 8824 Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) DIS 8825 Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) The corresponding CCITT document is: X.409 Message Handling Systems: Presentation Transfer Syntax and Notation (ISO documents can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which is the United States member body in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).) > P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would > again be greatful. OSI is the basis for an international networking > standard. Anyone wanting to learn about X.400 should learn this as > well. The best book I have found (from which the above information is taken) is "Handbook of Computer Communications Standards, Volume 1: The Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Model and OSI-related Standards" by William Stallings, published by Macmillan. -- Nigel Gamble "Everything should be made as simple as possible, MODCOMP/AEG but not simpler." Albert Einstein. uunet!modcomp!nigel
bar@dpmizar.sw.Datapoint.COM (Brian Ruptash) (08/18/88)
> DIS 8824 Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation > One (ASN.1) > DIS 8825 Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for > Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) IS 8824 and 8825 are now full-fledged International Standards. IS 8824 was published on 87.12.15, IS 8825 on 87.11.15. They should be available from your ISO member body (ANSI in the U.S., SCC in Canada). IS 8824 corresponds to JTC1/SC21 N2159, and IS 8825 to N2160, so if you already have those, you can save the fortune the national member bodies charge for the final ISs printed in Geneva... > P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would > again be greatful. OSI is the basis for an international networking > standard. Anyone wanting to learn about X.400 should learn this as > well. Stallings is OK, but by far the best one I've found is "Standards for Open Systems Interconnection", by Keith Knightson, Terry Knowles and John Larmouth, McGraw-Hill, 1988 (ISBN 0-07-035119-8). These guys are all key participants in the ISO and CCITT work, representing a cross-section of all the activities, and most certainly know their stuff. There have been several tutorials produced by the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC21 working groups on their respective projects; you may want to get a hold of those as well. -- Brian
campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (08/21/88)
In article <3437@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: }dts@cloud9.UUCP (Daniel Senie) writes: }-> There is a standard called X.400, which is the Message Handling Systems }-> standard. It allows dissimilar machines to exchange and transport mail. } }I thought that was what RFC-822 was all about. Silly me. RFC822 is incredibly primitive. It has no provisions for encoding messages with multiple parts. It has no notion of different content types -- everything must be 7-bit ASCII. It provides no way to encapsulate a message within a message. It has no provisions for non-English messages -- you must use 7-bit U.S. ASCII, and if your language uses accented or non-Latin characters, tough. It is nearly impossible to layer a real office automation system on top of RFC822, as there is no _standard_ way to mail binary files, revisable form documents, images, etc. etc. RFC822 (nee RFC733) was OK in 1973, but by now we should be eager to toss it out and move on to something with reasonable functionality. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. Internet: campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/23/88)
In article <1101@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >RFC822 is incredibly primitive. It has no provisions for encoding >messages with multiple parts. It has no notion of different content >types -- everything must be 7-bit ASCII. It provides no way to >encapsulate a message within a message. It has no provisions for >non-English messages -- you must use 7-bit U.S. ASCII, and if your >language uses accented or non-Latin characters, tough. > >It is nearly impossible to layer a real office automation system on >top of RFC822, as there is no _standard_ way to mail binary files, >revisable form documents, images, etc. etc. And it's quite impossible, of course, to *layer* a standard for such things on top of RFC822? (Of course, it's much more *interesting* to invent a new standard from the ground up, rather than adhering to silly, old-fashioned ideas like building on others' work and maintaining compatibility, but adults supposedly are capable of doing what's right, not just what's fun.) -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
john@basser.oz (John Mackin) (08/23/88)
In article <145@chiron.UUCP> jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) writes: > P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would > again be greatful. `The Elements of Networking Style', by Padlipsky. John Mackin, Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia john@basser.oz.AU (john%basser.oz.AU@UUNET.UU.NET) {uunet,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!basser.oz!john
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (08/24/88)
In article <1423@basser.oz> john@basser.oz (John Mackin) writes: >In article <145@chiron.UUCP> jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) writes: > >> P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would >> again be greatful. > >`The Elements of Networking Style', by Padlipsky. Well said! Jim The inews 50% rule is a pest sometimes -- ARPA: jim%cs.strath.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk UUCP: jim@strath-cs.uucp, ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim JANET: jim@uk.ac.strath.cs "JANET domain ordering is swapped around so's there'd be some use for rev(1)!"
boxdiger@impch.UUCP (Patrick Guelat) (08/28/88)
In article <1988Aug22.181252.6125@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: % In article <1101@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: % >RFC822 is incredibly primitive. It has no provisions for encoding % >messages with multiple parts. It has no notion of different content % >types -- everything must be 7-bit ASCII. It provides no way to.... % >[..] % > % >It is nearly impossible to layer a real office automation system on % >top of RFC822, as there is no _standard_ way to mail binary files, % >revisable form documents, images, etc. etc. % % And it's quite impossible, of course, to *layer* a standard for such things % on top of RFC822? (Of course, it's much more *interesting* to invent a new % standard from the ground up, rather than adhering to silly, old-fashioned % ideas like building on others' work and maintaining compatibility, but adults % supposedly are capable of doing what's right, not just what's fun.) And the new *interesting* standard is X.400. With X.400 you are able to mail images, complete documents and so on... But how long will we have to wait for this standard to be implemented and used on every system connected to the internet ? Perhaps in 10 years or so, it'll work... And in ten years there will be a discussion in comp.mail.uucp about a new standard, because X.400 will be old-fashioned... :-). (BTW, it will take another ten years for X.400 to work like it should...). Even today, ten years (?!) after the introduction of RFC822, a lot of mailers and sites on the internet doesn't even understand basic RFC822 rules or they missunderstand them.... I don't know a lot about X.400 but I think there are very good ideas behind it and it'll give us a lot of discussion stuff and work to do for the next ten years :-) Greetings from the center of Europe Pat