hagens@CS.WISC.EDU (08/31/89)
There are two lists that are related to X.400 messaging and X.400/RFC 822 gateways: ifip-gtwy and ietf-osi-or. The latter is used by members of the ietf working group called ietf-osi-or. There has been alot of overlap on the lists lately. I propose we merge them into one. I should point out, however, that there are occasional administrative messages on ietf-osi-or regarding meetings, etc. Additionally, I should point out that the ietf-osi-or meetings are open to all. So, how about some feed back- Is there anyone who would not like to see this merger? Rob Hagens ietf-osi-or-request@cs.wisc.edu
galvin@TIS.COM (James M Galvin) (09/01/89)
> There are two lists that are related to X.400 messaging and X.400/RFC 822 > gateways: ifip-gtwy and ietf-osi-or. As one on both lists (and all the lists that have had the recent discussion) it would be easy to suggest merging them. Then I wouldn't have to wade through multiple copies of messages, some arriving hours apart. However, I believe the lists serve a different purpose. The ifip-gtwy is intended to be long-lived and could reasonably provide a forum for all MHS and MHS gateway issues. The ietf-osi-or is specific to the transition of the Internet to X.400 OR Names. This list will eventually go away, when the working group has completed its task. Certainly, one or more issues discussed, or to be discussed on ietf-osi-or, are relevant to other forums. It is helpful to involve those other people, but are you planning to merge ietf-osi-or with every list with which there is overlap in the discussion? I believe it would be more appropriate to solicit members of the other lists to join ours if they are interested in the discussion. Or we could move certain discussions to appropriate lists. Jim
stef@BRL.ARPA (Einar Stefferud, Consultant|mike) (09/11/89)
IFIP-GTWY belongs to thew IFIP WG 6.5 for the discussion of genral issues of gateways interacting with X.400, and versions of X.400 interacting with each other. IETF-OSI-OR is foused on an operational aspect of the NREN. Ther is no sensible merger of the lists...\Stef
pvm@VENERA.ISI.EDU (Paul Mockapetris) (09/12/89)
I don't care whether the lists get merged or not. I do think that we should try to make the best possible union between at least the X.400, 822, DECNET, and possibly other mail worlds. I think that this will require a reasoned discussion with expertise from several different areas. It would be nice to hold this discussion in one place, without a lot of multiple list traffic to obscure the discussion. Someplace a little more intimate than TCP-IP would be nice. It may be that fixed tables and ugly addresses are the only alternative. I am more confident that they should be the last resort than I am that they are the best alternative. Rob Hagens has made a good start in presenting the issues, and the DNS WG will be having some joint sessions the OSI folks at the upcoming IETF, to try to find some alternatives. Its clearly a swamp, but I think that the MX experience in the Internet shows that it is possible, though difficult, to make mail addressing better. We should try. paul
braden@VENERA.ISI.EDU (09/12/89)
If I may give an opinion, I think there needs to be a working party/group of the IETF devoted to the future of Internet mail. BIG topic, I know! How do we move forward towards greater global mail connectivity, including some admixture of X.400, without losing any of the capability and ease of use that we currently enjoy? I hear mumbles that "they" are planning to make Internet mail more difficult to use, so that "we" will be willing to go to X.400. My teenage children have words for ideas like that, which I cannot bring myself to use in polite discourse. Bob Braden