Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU!af%sei.ucl.ac.be From: af%sei.ucl.ac.be@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU ("Alain FONTAINE ", Postmaster - NAD) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: X.400 on TCP Message-ID: <890915.163451.+0200.af@sei.ucl.ac.be> Date: 18 Sep 89 09:50:13 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 33 It seems that one of the first practical results of the OSI (1) effort will be the deployment of Message Handling Systems based on the X.400 CCITT recommendations (2). The MHS is defined at layer 7 ; in strict OSI logic, it is expected to use the services of an OSI presentation layer (which I was told it does *not*, even in a full OSI setup :_) ). In order to use some current network infrastructure, operation of a X.400 MHS on top of TCP (which, when applying the OSI RM to the DDN suite (3), generally ends up at layer 4, but who needs layers 5 and 6 when one has TCP :-) ) will probably be commonplace in the (near) future. The question : is there any work going on to define a standard way to do this, in order to allow implementations of X.400 conforming to the CCITT recommendations, operating on TCP implementations conforming to the relevant RFC's, to interoprate ? In one word, the reverse of RFC 1090. Thank you in advance for any relevant comments. /AF (1) please, no wasting of network ressources and readers time arguing about OSI vs ISO, or about the distinction between the RM and the actual protocols, etc. (2) please etc etc about the OSIness of the CCITT, or the fact that one should perhaps write X.4xx, etc. (3) please ....... about the correctness of doing so. Alain FONTAINE +--------------------------------+ Universite Catholique de Louvain | If your mail software barks at | Service d'Etudes Informatiques | my address, you may try : | Batiment Pythagore | | Place des Sciences, 4 | FNTA80@BUCLLN11.BITNET | B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, BELGIUM +--------------------------------+ phone +32 (10) 47-2625