Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcnc!rti!dg-rtp!bigben!bigben!philip
From: philip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com (Philip Gladstone)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Warning: flames on (was: Information on X.400 wanted)
Message-ID: <PHILIP.90Oct20191820@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com>
Date: 20 Oct 90 23:18:20 GMT
References: <16906@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <143921@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: usenet@dle.dg.com (Net News)
Organization: Data General, Development Lab Europe
Lines: 50
In-Reply-To: argv@turnpike.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 18 Oct 90 22:58:25 GMT

In article <143921@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> argv@turnpike.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Heller) writes:
   It even states in the text that X.400 is not a standard. Rather,
   it is a "recommendation for consideration."  Admittedly, it's hard
   to determine if some of the things they recommend is actually
   faulty because it's so hard to follow the logic and reasoning in
   the text that you are left thinking: hmmm... is that wrong or did
   I just miss a section somewhere? You don't know what's real and
   what's not...

   Please, X.400 is *NOT A STANDARD* just as Motif is not a standard
   nor is OPEN LOOK despite what the marketing people try to tell
   you.  X.400 has some good ideas and they address some badly needed
   issues that are not adequately dealt with given our current system
   (SMTP).  But, it is far from a standard... however, it will be a
   standard if no one comes up with something better..

X.400 is a CCITT Recommendation. The word "Recommendation" is
CCITT-ese for "Standard". You could have ordered ISO 10021 and got
almost the same document, but with ISO Standard substituted for CCITT
Recommendation throughout.

It is apparent that the X.400 Blue Book (the CCITT Recommendation) has
many typos in it. This is due to the fact that the CCITT rekeyed all
the data from the actual working drafts (or so I am led to beleive). 

The X.400 spec was also produced under very tight time pressure. It
*HAD* to be ready in time for the big CCITT plenary at the end of
1988. If not, then it would not become a recommendation. It also had to
be voted in unanimously! Both these facts cause a certain vagueness in
the document especially when dealing with regulatory issues and things
like international PRMDs. Interestingly, these are the areas that tend
to be different between ISO 10021 and X.400.

You ought to be aware that there is a document entitled
"MHS Implementor's Guide" which is now at version 3 (13 July 1990).
This guide is not part of the X.400 Recommendations but will be used
in its ongoing maintenance. It currently addresses 134 defect reports.
Some of the changes are due to typos (e.g. In LastTraceInformation,
change "ReporType" to "ReportType"), and some are clarifications.

I wonder if this guide to be made available to the general net? The
preface does say "Wide distribution of this document is expected and
encouraged." 


--
Philip Gladstone                        philip@dle.dg.com
Development Lab Europe                  C=gb/AD=gold 400/PR=dgc/O=dle
Data General, Cambridge                   /SN=gladstone/GN=philip
England.  +44 223-67600