Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!cblpf.att.COM!mark
From: mark@cblpf.att.COM (Mark R Horton)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: an apology to Steve, and more discussion ...
Message-ID: <8907192354.AA22516@tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 19 Jul 89 21:38:00 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 22
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov

While I still don't think this proposal is realistic, may I point
out one possible improvement anyway:

Change /C=XA/ to /C=US/.  The rest of the world has long told us that
they view the big six (COM, EDU, GOV, MIL, ORG, NET) domains as if they
had a .US on the end of them, anyway.  With the exception of a limited
number of Canadian sites (which I think are moving to .CA) the only people
to register in these domains have been in the US anyway.

If you use /C=US/ADMD=COM/PRMD=org/etc notion, then you only have to get
the US X.400 carriers to buy into the notion of 6 extra USA ADMDs to be
passed to the gateway.  The current proposal requires EVERY WORLDWIDE
X.400 carrier to support your XA notion and route it to an Internet gateway.

Personally, I don't believe either buy-in option is very likely.  The X.400
people I've talked to have the attitude "TCP/IP?  We don't care about them.
X.400 is an international standard, we support it.", "We provide service to
our customers for internal email, and we're working on a few interexchange
agreements with some other vendors.", and "If we get incoming email from
the Internet, whom do we bill for it?  We won't pass mail we can't bill for."

	Mark