Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: eskovgaa@uvcw.uvic.ca (Erik Skovgaard)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: X.400 APIs
Message-ID: <175*eskovgaa@uvcw.UVic.ca>
Date: 25 Sep 90 18:03:24 GMT
References: <173*eskovgaa@uvcw.UVic.ca>
Lines: 29
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <ENAG.90Sep25010738@hild.ifi.uio.no>

Well, it may get worse yet.
The X.400 APIA is going to be working on a "simplified" API for
X.400.

I cannot say I am totally in agreement with the APIA and X/Open in
the way they keep standards confidential until they have been approved, but
it does allow you to produce a standard much faster when you do not
have the world breathing down your neck.  In any case, I cannot
change that - it is just the way they work.

The X/Open X.400 APIs are aligned with the X.500 API ("XDS") and an
Object Management API (OM API).  All will, as far as I know, be published
jointly.

I would not stop the development of the Gateway API (once you have deceided
to undertake it) to the current spec.  The new spec is mostly going
to be an extension of the version 1 spec, but it would certainly be
useful to have the version 2 spec to take the Object Management into
account.

Note that the version 1 spec of the Gateway API does not support
ISO 6939 body parts, so some European versions of X.400 may have
a slight problem.

I hope we can fix some of the problems in the "simplified" API.
Please let me have any comments you may have to version 1 of the
spec.

                                            ....Erik.