Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!gec-b.rutherford.ac.UK!NTIN36 From: NTIN36@gec-b.rutherford.ac.UK (Jim Craigie) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: Notes from ISO messaging standards group Message-ID: <02.FEB.1989.00:05:37.NTIN36@UK.AC.RUTHERFORD.gec-b> Date: 2 Feb 89 02:08:00 GMT References: <390791@QZCOM> Sender: daemon@ncis.llnl.gov Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 27 Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov Date: 31 Jan 89 19:56 +0100 From: JPALME@se.qz.com Subject: Notes from ISO messaging standards group >X-Bitnet-Sender: "Jacob Palme QZ" Work on the Message Store ------------------------- The Message Store (a single user mailbox storage standard) which is part of MOTIS, had been out for letter ballot to member countries, and we went through the comments. This was mostly things which to me seemed like small details, but which other people thought were important and fundamental things, like changing the word "undefined" to "unspecified" (these words mean two very different things in the standards vocabularly). This isn't anything to do with standards vocabulary. Perhaps unfortunately, there is a value of EncodedInformationTypes called "undefined" and also the possibility of no values being specified, in which case the EncodedInformationType is "unspecified". See the CCITT X.400(84) Implementor's Guide for further elaboration of these rather confusing terms. The point at issue in the meeting was that DIS 10021-5 had said "undefined" when it meant "unspecified". Jim