Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!NRTC.NORTHROP.COM!Stef
From: Stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: on x.400 address RFC draft
Message-ID: <1373.616826184@nma.com>
Date: 19 Jul 89 04:36:24 GMT
References: <897IH172601095*Robert.Ullmann@EN-C06.X400.Prime.COM>
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Reply-To: Stef@nrtc.northrop.com
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov

I can see that we are going to have a difficult time dealing with this
proposal, mostly because the author has not done all the necessary
homework, but is in a mood to bash all critical comment.  Reminds me of
the good old days of MsgGroup back in 1976-77, before we gained some
measure of maturity in the matter of netmail discussion.  

Ther eis a basic fact that cannot be ignored:  The X.400 domains and the
Internet Domains are not under any kind of common central management
control, and they are not likely to become so in any foreseeable future.

In the US alone, we have not yet found an authoritative agent to deal
with registration of ADMD/PRMD names, let alone found a way to get this
unidentified authority to negotiate with the Internet, which has not
even begun to come to grips with the issues of X.400 domain naming for
its own PRMD segments.  We don't enven know whther we have one or more
than one PRMD in the Internet!

So, if your proposal is based on the assumption that we only need to
first estabish a single control point for all names, world wide, to
resolve the mapping problem of the Internet=>X.400, I vote to stop
discussing this whole thing right now!  That ain't gonna happen folks!  

Now, having said that, I need to find some time to read the whole
proposal to see if it is as unworkable as its author suggests by his
energetic comments.  Best...\Stef