Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!HPINDDA.HP.COM!tozz
From: tozz@HPINDDA.HP.COM
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
Subject: Re: Encoding RFC 1006 addresses in X.500
Message-ID: <9001171802.AA12974@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 90 18:00:48 GMT
References: <9001171725.AA18368@janeb.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 38



>In preparing a plan for the incorporation of OSI into the United States Internet,
>I feel that I must recommend a way to use ts-bridges when TP4/CLNS connectivity
>is not possible. The use of ts-bridges obviously requires a scheme to encode
>a 1006 address in the directory. It will work to encode the 1006 address in
>an NSAP, and put that NSAP in the directory. However, I cannot, as
>part of a transition plan for the United States Internet, recommend that 1006
>addresses be placed in an address space devoted to Steve Kille in the UK!

Why Not???
Is it soley political? or are their legal ramifications? I might remind you
that US Internet does, in fact, use an address space whose topmost root is
CCITT, namely X.121. True certain subdomains have been delegated to US-only
registration authorities, but it is still an address in a European domain.
Maybe we should be trying to take the same tack. Steve Kille can "give"
the address space 540072872203 to a US authority (in fact it really is anyway
since only valid IP addresses and Port numbers can be used). If this was
done formally, we would have the exact same situation as in the X.121 world.

>What I can recommend is that a small portion of the 470005 space be allocated
>to be used *in the same manner* as the 54... space. I cannot understand why
>you think it is bad to do this. 

I can think of one real good reason. It won't work with any current ISODE
implementation. Any RFC1006 implemenation must be re-coded to first identify
the NSAP as being ONE OF THE MANY RFC1006 addressing types, and then extract
the subnetwork information. In a world where interoperability is the name
of the game, adding something which reduces it and then adds complexity on
top of it should be avoided at all costs.

All I'm saying is: if it works, don't fix it. If we can bend the law,
then bend it.

>rob


bob tausworthe