Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CHEETAH.NYSER.NET!mrose
From: mrose@CHEETAH.NYSER.NET (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
Subject: Re: Encoding RFC 1006 addresses in X.500
Message-ID: <27011.632598190@cheetah.nyser.net>
Date: 17 Jan 90 17:43:10 GMT
References: <9001171725.AA18368@janeb.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 43

Rob -

> ... 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!

> 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.

In general, I find this whole thread to be entirely incoherent.

There is already a solution in place that is working.  I find it
difficult to understand why anyone cares what prefix is used, providing
it works.

Changing numbers for the sake of yanking it out of the TELEX space at
UCL is not going to serve any good purpose.  What it will do is require
that someone change the 1000+ systems out there running ISODE 5.0 or
the who-knows-how-many-systems that will be running ISODE 6.0 next week.

I always criticize the OSI camp for changing things that work in the
real world in order to have things conform to some paper model of the
world.  It looks like that I get to make the same criticism of the
Internet camp as far as the 470005 thing goes.

If your only argument is that the prefix for the current address space
originates in the UK, then this is about the most specious thing I have heard
in the last four years.

At the risk of really upsetting you, I will note that people have been
working on this transition thing between the Internet suite and the OSI
suite for a long time: before there was an OSI area in the IETF, in
fact, even before there was an IETF.  (Some wag in the audience will
probably note that people were probably working on it before there was
an OSI!)  Perhaps the efforts of the IETF would be better spent by
focusing on adopting existing solutions that work rather than
reinventing nearly identical things and breaking the existing things in
the process.

Amazed that this thread has gotten this far,

/mtr