Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!DBNGMD21.BITNET!GRZ027
From: GRZ027@DBNGMD21.BITNET (Peter Sylvester +49 228 8199645)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: on x.400 address RFC draft
Message-ID: <"89-07-20-23:23:33.06*GRZ027"@DBNGMD21.BITNET>
Date: 21 Jul 89 06:23:00 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 33
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov

> Hi Peter -- You should not omit the fact that dbp.de also chooses on the
> X.400 side to omit the Org= attribute, so ...
>
> lt really looks like OU..PRMD.ADMD.Co ..
>
> /c=de/admd=dbp/prmd=organization/ou=suborg/ou=suborg/...
>
> How would this new proposal handle the missign ORG= attribute?
After years it seems that I was beginning to believe
what is constantly told here: the mapping choosen by DFN would
allow a simple one to one mapping of attributes and domains.
As long as you only look into one direction...

- RFC987 handles the mapping problem in the appropriate way:
  If there is some "e-mail domain" connected to two different
  protocold worlds, then this "domain" gets two independant
  set of names/attributes and the fact that these two
  names define the mapping that has to be used in ALL
  gateways.

- The internet domain space is supposed to be a hierarchical name
  space and routing should not be done just by looking at one
  component (well I know .BITNET and .UUCP .CSNET etc) In X.400
  the admd may be usable as a "routing hint", at least in
  countries with more than one admd it makes sense to allow
  delivery either via the expensive and fast xyz or...

  A comparable functionality in the internet is source routing.

Summary: Simple mapping - no way.


Peter