Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu (Alf Hansen) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: Smtp <---> X400 Message-ID: <910528112421*/G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@MHS> Date: 28 May 91 16:27:32 GMT References: <9105251734.AA28968@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> Lines: 155 Approved: usenet@ics.uci.edu X400-Originator: Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu Content-Identifier: 910528112421 In-Reply-To: <9105251734.AA28968@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de > X400-Received: by mta pilot.cs.wisc.edu in /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed; Tue, 28 May 1991 11:24:33 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed; Tue, 28 May 1991 11:24:24 +0000 X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;hansen675447864.35hermit.cs.uw] Rainer, I am representing the IETF WG trying to solve your problems, the IETF X.400 Operations WG. The European group, the RARE WG1 (on MHS) is also trying to make it easy for X.400 end-users like you. There have been some progress during the last few years, but the situation is at the moment far from ideal. However, if we can make the right choises now, the future situation could improve considerably. The IETF X.400 OPS WG is working on an RFC describing the requirements for an Internet PRMD, and if we do our job well, the addressing chaos will disappear WHEN THE RFC HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED, and that may still take some time. One of the goals is that all addresses are replyable, end-users should just use the addresses provided, and not worry about gateways and other operational details. It should be clear to evarybody in the X.400 or RFC-822 worlds, how they should address an end-user in the other world. Some comments to your message: > an addressing like /c=us/adamd......./@X400net, Ch. Huitema > suggested, already exists in form of the Spintmail/Telemail > gateway: > > /pn=rainer.daeschler/o=testorg.ati/ADMD=ati/c=jp/@sprint.com > > ATI is a commercial X400 Mailservice belonging to Telemail/Sprintmail. > > This works fine with my smpt-mailer here, but some local mailers > refuse to handle it. It is the recommenation from the IETF X.400 OPS WG not to use such addresses, and if I remember Christian's comment correctly, he did not suggest that this is the way to address X.400 users from the RFC-822 world. He just said that we must be prepared to handle these addresses, because they will be around for a while. Using your address example above, the recommendation from the IETF WG is that authorities in Japan should define an address mapping between X.400 and the RFC-822 world. A result could then be that the above address seen from RFC-822 will look like this: rainer.daeschler@testorg.ati.ati.jp > It is impossible for any smtp-Mailer to handle for example > "/ADMD=British Telecom". The British PTT was clever enough to accept > also adresses like uk.british-telecom and uk.bt if they are addressed > from outside. The address mapping definitions will handle this problem. The R&D MHS service providers in the UK, have in the new mapping tables to be implemented June 1st, for example defined that ADMD=GOLD 400 is mapped to gold-400.gb. The procedures for address mapping table coordination exist already, and the procedures will be continuously improved. > My X400 address here is: > > c=de;a=dbp;p=uni-tuebingen;ou=kulturwissenschaften;s=daeschler > > while our Smtp-Mail gateway uses "/c=", in DFN (German Research > Network) we have to use "c=XX;a=" If I understand you correctly, your gateway is not behaving as it should. Ask your gateway manager to contact DFN to get advice. > As you see, the way X400 addresses are written are not the > same everywhere. It much easier to address a German DFN-site with > its's domain-address rather than using X400 Style. It is > more secure to leave the convertion to the gateway, than > doing it by yourself. Why? Look at the address above. One > has to know, that German Universities don't use > o=organization, other institutions do. But if you address > it with > > daeschler@kulturwissenschaften.uni-tuebingen.dbp.de > > you don't have to care about this problem. I agree with you that to omit O in some cases and use O in some other cases is not good for the end-users. > How should an inocent novice know, that he has to leave > the ADMD empty it he addresses > > c=no;a= ;p=uninett;o=uninett@s=mhsnews ? > > His collegues in the internet would never notice, that > there might be a problem. > > As you see, each X400 network should have an gateway, where > domain-style addresses are converted to X400. This keeps > the X400 nets free from bouncing mails. > > Unless on doesn't stop this incomaptible variety of addressing shemes > in the X400 world, there is little chance that it will substitute the > smtp-mail and UUCP-mail in future. You are right, clever mapping decisions can hide some of the X.400 related problems from the RFC-822 users. "Pure" X.400 users may look at this differently, because they are used to X.400 addresses, and they may even like them because they may reflect the organizational structure better than the RFC-822 addresses (at least in some cases). The X.400 users, on the other hand, need an easy description of how to address RFC-822 users. The IETF X.400 OPS WG recommends as ageneral rule to use Domain Defined Attributes (DDAs) of type RFC-822, but this is a separate issue... > The way German DFN accepts domain addresses ist a solution, > but addressing shemes are still very unrational if it is > done in it's own X400 system. > > If one sends mail *within X400* using domain-style, it is > only supported by the software EAN for VAX/VMS. > > The Ositel for UNIX adopted for DFN is still buggy. > > While EAN is able to change an domain-address to > X400 style using the "compose" command, Ositel forces > the input of X400 style. Further ist doesn't accept > any /=DD.XX style address. This means, that existing > forms of addresse can't be adressed, if someone has > the wrong software. The software available is machine > depended. > > Please don't forget, one major argument for OSI is not > to be dependent from manufacturers from certain brands. > > Now I would be dependent on Digital Equipment here, because > there is no reasonable software offered for other machines > and supported by the DFN. You are right, some X.400 software is better than others, and you should choose the software suiting you best. However, in the case of X.400 there is not much really good products to choose from, although I know that the list of products used in DFN is quite long. > I think in the development of X400 networks we should not start to > create a science, only dealing with the problem how to address whom. A > novice user should be able to use addresses as easy as using a > phonenumber. Further we should more empahasis the transperancy of the > system to contact other networks. Most people we contact are not in > the network we are ourself. Now, either I spend all my time in learing > the secrets of mailing into other networks myself, or I have to invite > the system-manager to a beer (probably more) to encourage him to spend > half an hour to figure out what I all have to keep in mind if I > address this and this address. Agree completely. As I said in the beginning, the goal is to just use the address provided. This requires better operational procedures between E-mail/Gateway managers. The progress in this area is slow, but there is a progress. Best regards, Alf H IETF X.400 Operations WG Chairman.