S.Kille@CS.UCL.AC.UK (Steve Kille) (07/21/89)
I've received a few messages on this. Let me suggest an alternative.
Lets drop Appendix A altogether from 987, and publish it as a separate RFC
(to appear at the same time). This can be referenced from 987(88).
This would apply to networks which cannot support full RFC 822 addressing,
and in particular the 822.quoted-string encoding which UUCP transfer cannot
deal with.
Advantages:
- architecturally cleaner
- provides a general solution for UUCP support of full RFC 822
addressing, and not just for X.400
- in principiple solves the multiple gateway problem
Disadvantages
- I'm not a bona fide UUCP person!
- lots of gateways need to implement it (primarily SMTP/UUCP), for
it to be genuinely useful
I suggest that the first can be solved by joint/different authors (Mark? or
anyone else who thinks they are relevant here?)
The second problem is true of any new spec. In practice, there are not many
gateway IMPLEMENTATIONS to cover.
Comments?
Steve
Stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud) (07/21/89)
I agree completely. This is a UUCP/SMTP/RFC822 gateway problem and it should be solved by the UUCP community, not the X.400 community. Your proposal puts the responsibility for dolution where it belongs. I see no way to support X.400 handstands to solve a problem between SMTP and UUCP. Onward!!!\Stef
mark@cblpf.att.COM (Mark R Horton) (07/26/89)
I agree that it makes more sense in a separate RFC. Unfortunately, I can't author it at this time. (Partly time, partly politics.) I will be happy to lend my blessing to someone else, however. I suspect it's just a matter of taking the 987 text, extracting the appendix, putting on the right headers, and adding an intro. Mark