Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!NRTC.NORTHROP.COM!Stef
From: Stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: Proposal for use of DNS to store RFC 987, etc mappings
Message-ID: <24093.648186439@nma.com>
Date: 17 Jul 90 03:47:19 GMT
References: <9007161446.AA08340@janeb.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Stef@nrtc.northrop.com
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25

It may just be my inability to read these things with ease, but I did
not see a clear cut distinction between the records used to identify
(route to) gateways vs the records used to map TO-822 and TO-X400 in the
RFC822 and P2 envelopes.  It is not clear to me how an X400 MTA would
use these records for P1 routing to a gateway.  (Not that I think they
should not!  I absolutely think that we should find a way to do this,
without resorting to source-routing hacks!)  

Could you clarify this in the text?

Also, why do you want to orient the X400 addresses least significant
element to the left, and most significant to the right, when most X400
texts tend to show them the other way around?  (Or am I wrong in this
perception?)  Is there any non-arbitrary logic here?  

Next, is it reasonable to deal with the excess of DNS domain names in a
mapping TO-X400 by just arbitrarily concatenating the excess into the
lowest level OU on the X400 side?  

 u@a.b.c.d.e.f.g => S$u.OU$a\.b\.c.OU$d.OU$e.OU$f.O$g.PRMD$NREN.ADMD$ .C$US

And last, what is wrong with allowing mapping all the way down to the
User Name (S$last.G$first)?  

Cheers...\Stef