Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!ALASKA.BITNET!SXKAC
From: SXKAC@ALASKA.BITNET ("Kurt Carlson")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Fw: re: Attribute Ordering
Message-ID: <8907162008.AA08772@tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 16 Jul 89 21:07:03 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Reply-To: kehres@tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 49
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov


> View 1 (Huitema + Craigie).
>
> The gateway should be allowed to generate attributes in any order.  This
> would allow them to use their respective preferred orders (most significant
> on the left, and most signficant in the middle).  Gateway output could then
> be aligned with user expectation.
>
> View 2 (Kille)
>
> Consistency between gateways is very important.  (RFC 822) Users should
> expect to see the same form of X.400 address from different gateways.
> Message IDs should always be generated in the same way.  Therefore, this
> specification should require an order when generating addresses.

Please note the smtp translation log below from a message posted 7/15:

< 220 UK.AC.RL.IB Columbia MAILER X1.25 BSMTP service ready.
< 050 HELO UKACRL
< 250 UK.AC.RL.IB Hello UKACRL
< 050 MAIL FROM:<SXKAC@EARN.ALASKA>
< 250 <SXKAC@EARN.ALASKA>... sender OK.
< 050 RCPT TO:<p02@UK.AC.RL.IB>
< 250 <p02@UK.AC.RL.IB>... recipient OK.
< 050 DATA
< 354 Start mail input.  End with <crlf>.<crlf>

This resulted from a message from SXKAC@ALASKA.BITNET to P02@IB.RL.AC.UK;
the domain type specifications have been inverted by somebody's mailer.
This message resulted from several hours of research following a request
>from PO2@IB.RL.AC.UK to "correct" our mailer which s/he felt was garbling
messages to be "user@EARN.ALASKA" instead of "user@ALASKA.EARN".
In reality, something elsewhere and as yet undefined is reponsible.

While I'm not sure this has any direct relation with RFC987, it may serve
as an example (as if we should need any) of what results when somebody
elects to do things in an inverted fashion.

In my opinion, an order should be required and follow rfc987/1026.
The purpose of the standards is to communicate.  Perhaps it is "natural"
for humans to fail to communicate, but that is not the objective of
x.400 or the revisions to rfc987.  Consider me a strong advocate for
"View 2 (Kille)" to generate in a consistant and documented manner.
If a particular subset of the world defines "naturalness" differently
(which they will) it should be their responsibility to implement their
natural order within their local user agents but not to extend / inflict
that upon the gateways to other agents.    Kurt

Kurt Carlson, University of Alaska Computer Network, <SXKAC@ALASKA.BITNET>