Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!A.BBN.COM!DDEUTSCH From: DDEUTSCH@A.BBN.COM Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: DoD Representation at ISO Message-ID: <[A.BBN.COM].9-Jul-86.16:28:28.DDEUTSCH> Date: Wed, 9-Jul-86 16:28:00 EDT Article-I.D.: <[A.BBN.COM].9-Jul-86.16:28:28.DDEUTSCH> Posted: Wed Jul 9 16:28:00 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 10-Jul-86 22:58:41 EDT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 29 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa I must disagree when you mention X.400 as a standard that was developed "without any significant inputs from the ARPANET world." X.400 had its inception in IFIP 6.5, which was (and still is) open to all interested parties and has had a good number of members from the ARPAnet community. The ARPAnet experience with electronic mail was extremely important when the CCITT began to build upon the IFIP work. The details are different, but many of the basic ideas were carried through. Yes, X.400 doesn't use RFC 822 to represent message. Yes, it uses a different form of addressing. But the underlying structure of headers and text, and the definitions of the message headers themselves, draws heavily upon ARPAnet experience. Likewise, the P1 protocol was designed with SMTP and the old MAIL option to FTP in mind. (I can think of at least four members of the American delegation who were quite familiar with ARPAnet mail protocols. In fact, at least three of us had been involved in the development and/or implementation of ARPAnet mail and other protocols.) If it weren't for the wide-spread success and implementation of ARPAnet-style mail, there probably wouldn't be an X.400 series at all. We'd all be contemplating teletex as the ultimate in electronic mail standards. I cannot claim to be unbiased in this discussion. I, too, worked on commercial standards (including X.400) under NBS funding to BBN. Feel free to factor that into your reading of this message! Cheers, Debbie Deutsch