pays@mars.emse.fr (Paul-Andre Pays) (05/31/91)
a few comments, > > How far is this standarized? It would be a good idea if there is a general > > equatation like: > > > > (X.400:) xxxx yyyy = (smtp:) xxxx-yyy > > It is not standardized at all I am afraid. Not only it is not standardized but after lenghy discussions 2years ago the conclusion was that one could not even dream of this because simply it cann't be done. Only a table driven approach is able to handle all possible situations. The X.400 name space is richer than the RFC domain name one and there is nos possible functional mapping. Moreover you are interested (see below) in fax and telex AUs which requires ORadresses of a very specific form. I am not pushing for the tables, on the contrary I am fighting against the current situation. . they are unavoidable . the current approach (SA mapping, no directory) is going to collapse from the difficulty to handle it (table size, consistency problems.. . improvement is coming short term with the XNREN DDA mapping "coup" longer term: shift from ORaddresses to DirectoryNames Most of today problem comes from the wish to see the world through a single (RFCdomain name based) naming scheme, even when using X.400 tools. I can understand it (numbers of RFC sites vs number of X400 sites) but it is a brain damaged decision leading to such stupidities as 2 X400 users having their mail going through 2 gateways (double conversion) only because they only print they RFC address on their business cards... > > This is not what I would print on my business card. I would print > something according to the RARE definition: > > C=us; ADMD= ; PRMD=xnren; O=UW-Madison; OU=cs; S=Hansen; G=Alf > > This is not a description of a user-interface, but a way to exchange > X.400 addresses between human beings. Right or use the soon to be published ISO/CCITT variant G=Alf; S=Hansen; O=UW-Madison; OU1= cs; P=xnren; A= ; C=us; But note that as long it is only for exchange between human being that the attribute order or the exact keyword choice does not deserve a new "Holly War". > > c=de;a=dbp;p=organisation (University, etc.) > > c=ch;a=arcom;p=switch;o=organisation (University, etc) > > c=us;a= ;p=xnren;o=organisation (Univeristy, etc.) > > > > The networks DFN (represented by dbp), SWITCH and XNREN are identifies > > completeley differently. If one sees all the X400 systems together, one > > can't tell when to skip ADMD or whether a network itself is identified > > by ADMD or PRMD. > > Perhaps an international RFC from the Internet, could contribute to a more > unified situation. > I hope it will, I bet it will But, 1.Part of the current mess comes from the fact that the us had not made any mapping choice for the domains (edu, mil, gov ...) under "us" authority, and thus, each country had to provide it's own mapping. 2. Part of the mess comes from the (soon to be corrected) brain damaged decision not to give a mandatory status to the correct handling of DomaindefinedAttributes. These DDA were intended to handle access to other mail systems.... 3. Most of the strangest naming schemes are those concerned with the visibility od RFC domains. X.400 was not designed to be another mean to express domain names, you can't blame X.400 if it is not obvious how to use X.400 to represent something which is not X.400. 4. ORaddress ('84 ORnames) are indeed brain damaged as they mix adressing and naming. ORaddresses which have to give enough information for routing decision are ant will remain unfriendly for the end-user. The only nice soluation for users will be the X.500 directory which will allow to ignore ORaddresses (the condition being the organisations adopt a user friendly naming scheme) plus much improved X.400 SW to ease the user work at designing recipients... > > Following the draft mapping decision made at the IETF meeting in St. > Louis, this address would look like: > > C=us; ADMD= ; PRMD=Internet; DD.RFC-822=userid(a)vms.mac.wisc.edu > > everywhere, when implemented. Alf, this is a human user representation (suitable for business card???) but it is a UA and other product matter to provide a user friYndly input of this kind of address: One may certainly dream of a UA accepting the DD.RFC-822 as userid@foo.bar.edu and nicely and silently genrating the (a) instead of "@". it already exists One may certainly dream of a UA with windows and forms to enter only the attributes values (and not the types) it already exists One may certainly dream of a UA (X400 UA) allowing you to type only the "userid@foo.bar.edu" and nicely genearting the appropriate SA attributes : C=us; A= ; ... for you I hope it will exist soon > > > > (1) As far as I have heared, Switch, Sunet and the users of the commercial > > Sprintmail ans ATI can address fax recipents. I would like > > to know to which extend this is realized among the existing X.400 systems. > > To tell you beforehand, DFN-users have only email available. > > There is probably a lot going on in the labs in this area, but in the > operational service, as far as I know, nobody is offering other body- > parts than text as an end user service (yet). Some X.400 service providers > (ex. UNINETT in Norway) are providing, at least experimental, X.400 > to FAX gateway services. PRMD XNREN is also working on this, and will > provide an X.400 -> fax service. I would not bet on that, i seem to remind some ads for these features. But this not necessarily the point, for example here in France no organisation of my knowledge has bought any fax AU with its MTA, but many many of us are able to genrates faxes from our favorite mailer (even Unix mailer if you accept to type "/" and submit to a RFC987 gateway), up to a point that it is overused with dist. list recipient being fax recipients and receiving more than 20 fax a day about one single topic.. the trick? just to be a PRMD subscribing to our "behated" but usefull official ADMD "ATLAS", which indeed offers this and teletex access too. It is even to the point that this is for many of us the main (and close to only) reason to subscribe to ATLAS. One of our goal (will it ever be reached?) would be to operate a fax access for the R&D commuvity (no need to be an ADMD) > > > (2) I would like to know how my address is mapped in other X400 systems. > > Please cut & paste my address from the header into the mail-body and send > > it to me directly. I will post the summary to the list. The aim is to find > > out what variety of addressing-shemes actually exist. > > I will. > OK but once again it will not be a matter of mapping (strictly speaking) but a matter of user inte9face representation. 1. in RFA the mappings have been defined, thus there is no reason for anyone (nor any right) to apply a different mapping than the one in the RAE/COSINE tables for your institution. 2. what you will maybe see is a representation... but even that how can I (today) cut and paste you the form out of my XWindow based UA where I see your ORaddress (With some efforts I could send you a 200+ Ko file in ratser form or PostScript may be.??). -- PAP