Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!CS.UCL.AC.UK!S.Kille
From: S.Kille@CS.UCL.AC.UK (Steve Kille)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Appendix A and spaces - another approach
Message-ID: <454.617008694@UK.AC.UCL.CS>
Date: 21 Jul 89 07:18:14 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 36
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov

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