Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: Stef@ICS.UCI.EDU (Einar Stefferud)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: DATA Compression and X400 standards
Message-ID: <9295.657828706@nma.com>
Date: 5 Nov 90 18:39:04 GMT
Reply-To: Stef@ICS.UCI.EDU
Lines: 32
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 05 Nov 90 10:04:56 -0500.
             <9011051504.AA02887@idunno>

Compression of Body Parts in X.400 P2 envelopes is very much like
adoption of any other special body part, like WordPerfect, or MSWord, or
DCA, or LOTUS Spread Sheet, or EXCEL, etc, et al.

There are two basic problems:

1.  Establish a standard definition and make it wisely available and
widely implemented so many UAs can install and use it.

2.  Figure out who can handle the defined object as a body part.

Item 2 is really hard to resolve for the global community, without
requiring a global directory to hold specific information on exactly
what body part types every UA in the world can handle so every potential
originator can simply ask "the directory" if an intended recipient can
handle a given body part type.  I shudder at the task of setting up and
operating such a global directory of UA capabilities, and at the Quality
of Service aspects when individuals fail to keep their UA entries
current in the global directory.  Some people and organizations will
even regard this as private information, not to be disclosed to the
public.

As I see it, this grand global directory is only a dream.  Maybe a
"pipedream".

So, the only fall back we have is for the originator to ask the intended
UA owner if the target UA can handle the body part type that the
originator wants to send.  This is actually cheaper than demanding that
everyone in the world inform everyone in the world what body part types
their UA can handle.

I don't see any other way around this dilemma.  Best...\Stef