Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: pays@mars.emse.fr (Paul-Andre Pays)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: RE: Smtp <---> X400
Message-ID: <9106031308.AA10563@mars.emse.fr>
Date: 3 Jun 91 13:13:08 GMT
Lines: 63
Approved: usenet@ics.uci.edu
X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/;
	Relayed; 03 Jun 91 15:11:53+0100
X400-Received: by /PRMD=emse/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/;
	Relayed; 03 Jun 91 15:08:46+0200

> It would be logical to have a PRMD uucp and bitnet, but it is not
> necessary, since one can leave it to the Internet to find the
> next gateway. The user would still find this very cryptic, but
> as long he has not to put it together himself and it will find
> it's desitnation, he would not care.
>
> What do you think about a solution "smarthost=Internet-Gateway"?
>
> Software-manufactuers must be encouraged to include this convertional
> step, of course.

We debated the issue of  uucp and bitnet PRMD and/or
the solution of DD.BITNET DD.UUCP (similar to DD.RFC-822)
and finaly for the simp0licity it gives on the user side
we decided in France to only have one* SDA set and one DDA type

	C=FR; A=red; P=internet;
	with
		DD.RFC-822=user(a)sub.dom.top
		DD.RFC-822=user(a)site.bitnet
		DD.RFC-822=user(a)site.uucp

only one*:
	of course this is for nationaly defined mappings
	we use C=us; A= ; P=Internet;   for US controlled top-level domains

smarthost:
	Let me just signal that all 3 french WEps use M.PLUS which
	can be configure to act as a  smarthost/smartgateway:
	M.PLUS routes DD.RFC822 attributes on the basis of the
	RFC domain described by the DD.RFC-822 value, whatever
	the associated SDA might be. This is really a nice feature
	extremely useful for this strategy.

>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> C=fr;A=atlas;P=emse;O=emse;OU=mars;S=pays;FFN=Paul-Andre Pays
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >Right or use the soon to be published ISO/CCITT variant
> >   G=Alf; S=Hansen; O=UW-Madison; OU1= cs; P=xnren; A= ; C=us;
>                      ^^            ^^
> >But note that as long it is only for exchange between human being
> >that the attribute order or the exact keyword choice does not deserve
> >a new "Holly War".
>
> Are you sure this is correct?  I don' know the ISO/CCITT recommendation,
> but this looks rather like misprint then a logic X.400 adress to me.
>

I am wainting for the last version of the ISO/CCITT draft but the
last but one was indeed promoting the form I have given as an
example.
Additionaly, if I remember well there was some reasoning for this choice.
In my mind the only important issue is to decide at last for a
single universal representation and as long as it is "keyworded"
I am not ready to spend energy on discussing the order of
these. SW and interfaces have to be smart enough.



-- PAP