Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: nazgul@alfalfa.COM (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: re: Re: Is X.400 good for international mail?
Message-ID: <910114151355.301@alphalpha>
Date: 14 Jan 91 20:49:50 GMT
References: <9101141752.AA10151@polya.Eng.Sun.COM>
Lines: 34
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
Encoding: 26 TEXT, 7 TEXT
In-Reply-To: <9101141752.AA10151@polya.Eng.Sun.COM>
X-Mailer: Poste

> >  So, I am not sure why LOTUS should be so all
> >  fired interested in rushing to enbale you to use their OIDs in
> >  non-existant X.400(88) systems.
>
> 88 systems are starting to pop up.  Also, we may see a "chicken and the
> egg" problem here: one of the nicest things about the 88 protocols is
> the ability to carry data identified by OIDs.  Are 88 systems going to
> catch on if no OIDs are defined?  If 88 systems haven't caught on, will
> third parties bother getting an OID (especially if it costs 1000
> bucks)?
In particular, we are using 88 OIDS even on 84 X.400.  We currently
send all types that aren't defined in 84 as a bilaterally-defined
enclosure, and within that we use our own format to encode the OID.
We still want the OID to be legit in case someone on the other side
(other then ourselves) might want to use the format as well,
and so we don't have to tell all of our customers to change their
config files when we move to 88 X.400.

If you want more details, look for us at Uniforum.  We'll be in the
Bull and CrossWind booths and possibly some others.

						-kee





Alfalfa Software, Inc.		|	Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com		|	Send Anything... Anywhere
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)	|	info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.