Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!bionet!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-tis!NORUNIX.BITNET!grimm%darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de
From: grimm%darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de@NORUNIX.BITNET (Ruediger Grimm)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Prototyping 1988 X.400 UA and MTA.
Message-ID: <1901*grimm@darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de>
Date: 11 Nov 88 10:07:00 GMT
References: <1867*myrstad@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
Sender: root@tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 22
Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov


  > We are interested to learn if there are anyone working with a UA, MS
  > and MTA using the 1988 specifications.


We are working on security extensions according to X.400-88. UBC-EAN
seems to be working at directory access extensions. Hence, these
three parties are working on three different aspects of X.400-88.
What we need, is an early agreement about the subset of 88-extensions
which are realized at all parties. There are two papers, which are
about such an agreement:
 (1) X.400 (1988) /ISO 10021 Requirements Survey,
     which was distributed by James Hutton among the WG1 members.
     I think we should fill the questionaire early!
 (2) COSINE study 8.2.2: Migration Strategy for X.400 (84) to
     X.400 (88) /Motis, by Jim Craigie
A great help to understand the situation is Jim's tutorial about X.400 (88)
for those who understand X.400 (84), in the "Computer Networks and ISDN
Systems" Vol. 16 (1988/89), distributed among the vsistors of the
networkshop at Les-Diablerets.
Let us keep in touch!
Greetings --- Ruediger