Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!DBNGMD21.BITNET!GRZ027
From: GRZ027@DBNGMD21.BITNET (Peter Sylvester +49 228 8199645)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Fw: Re: Space mapping and Appendix A
Message-ID: <"89-07-14-20:44:59.41*GRZ027"@DBNGMD21.BITNET>
Date: 15 Jul 89 03:44:00 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Reply-To: kehres@tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 30
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov

> Gateways which use and don't use this mapping do not fit very well together.
>
> Postion 1.  This was held by the majority, whose primary interest is with
> "first class 822 nets" (SMTP/Internet + JNT Mail/Janet).   Essentially,
> the view is that the specification should not be made poorer in order to
> deal with UUCP networks.
>
>
> Position 2.  Appendix A should be made manadatory, as some places need it and
> it will help to avoid interworking problems (Christian Huitema and Peter
> Sylvester took this line).
>
In the short hour before leaving to a "wonderful" 2.5 hours trip
>from UCL to the airport I was trying to explain that obviously
many X.400-"RFC822" gateways use at least the underscore blank
mapping. There are some situations where a message coming from
"RFC822" containing underscores in addresses where it would be
correct to map them to a blank, and not to (u).  (I took the
position of the advocatus diaboli.)

I think Christian's point was that he wanted to make clear
that there is a problem and it is not sufficient to take
a rigid position. We need at least some consensus how to phase out
gateways that use undesirable mappings.

I cannot go to our director and tell him: Sorry, you can no longer
communicate because we are using new software.

Regards
Peter Sylvester