Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!en-c06.x400.prime.COM!Robert.Ullmann From: Robert.Ullmann@en-c06.x400.prime.COM Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway Subject: on x.400 address RFC draft Message-ID: <897IH172601095*Robert.Ullmann@EN-C06.X400.Prime.COM> Date: 18 Jul 89 21:18:05 GMT Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov Reply-To: Ariel@relay.prime.com Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 83 Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov Hi, [just to correct the record: > As we have discussed privately, I believe that your spec is > unworkable. I sent a draft to Mr Kille, whose reply began by dismissing my premise as "nonsense". I filed the response appropriately. This does not, to my mind, constitute "discussion"] To get on to actual discussion therefore: > I agree with you that the maintenace of tables is a pain. However, it is a > reality that the X.400 and 822 domain worlds are not under a single control. Okay, it is a problem. How about we fix it? The X.400 authority has already decreed that there will be a small number of X.400 ADMDs, in Europe it will typically be only one per country. So the necessary coordination consists of ensuring that: 1) 2nd level internet domains within top-level ISO-3166 ALPHA-2 domains do not use the ADMD names within that country. 2) that the proper MX record(s) be set up for the X.400 ADMDs at the positions in the DNS IN class that will be available because of (1) 3) the remaining top-level internet domains are mapped into an ISO-3166 code not used by the ADMDs, i.e. one of the extension codes. How do we accomplish this? It requires no action by the CCITT or ISO, it has been designed to require action only by the Internet. What is the proper procedure to propose such an action? Answer: prototype it, make sure it works, and submit an RFC. Which is exactly what I am doing. [I now resist the temptation to bash the rest of the note ...] Please consider: The internet is fully interconnected; mail can be routed between any two points without leaving the internet (I am including uucp systems that use domain names). If a local "pocket" of X.400 systems is connected by only one gate (or several under one administration), it can reasonably be using a table mapping; since there is no other route out. If all of X.400 consists only of such local pockets, connected by the internet, it continues to work. But, presumably, the intent is that X.400 will be as well self connected as the internet. This in turn means that there will be many thousands of contact points between the two, each one a gate that may pass traffic for any given target system. And only some of the mail directed to a given target will transit the gate(s) under that local administration. Most will go via the gate belonging to the sender. Another person on this list [whom I will not identify unless he gives me permission to reference private mail] has pointed out that the mapping(s) will not be "local": the tables will be shared throughout Europe. Let me point out that to the other 3 and 1/2 thousand million people on our planet, something used only in Europe is *local*! [enough for one note] Best Regards, Robert Ullmann Prime Computer