Reply to Re: Reply to MHS-DS at the next IETF

Michael.R.Storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.d400.de Wed, 23 February 1994 15:35 UTC

X400-Received: by /c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=cdc/ ; Relayed ; 23 Feb 94 03:28:10 -0600
X400-Received: by /c=US/admd=/prmd=XNREN/ ; Relayed ; 23 Feb 94 09:28:44 Z
X400-Received: by /c=de/admd=d400/prmd=dfnrelay/ ; Relayed ; 23 Feb 94 09:27:23 Z
X400-Received: by /c=de/admd=d400/prmd=lrz-muenchen/ ; Relayed ; 23 Feb 94 09:23:12 Z
X400-Received: by mta MTAwally in /c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=cdc/ ; Relayed ; 23 Feb 94 03:21:14 +0600
X400-Received: by mta cdc.us in /c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=cdc/ ; Relayed ; 23 Feb 94 03:28:10 -0600
X400-MTS-Identifier: /c=de/admd=d400/prmd=lrz-muenchen/ ; 940223101337738-MTALRZVEE
Content-Identifier: 940223101337738
Content-Return: Allowed
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 ( 2 )
Conversion: Allowed
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
Priority: normal
Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited
Alternate-Recipient: Prohibited
X400-Originator: Michael.R.Storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.d400.de
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure: ;
Message-Id: <940223101337738-MTALRZVEE*/c=de/admd=d400/prmd=lrz-muenchen/o=/ou=LRZ/s=Storz/g=Michael/i=R/@MHS>
In-Reply-To: <2d69f01b54d5002@mercury */c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=cdc/o=udev/ou=mercury/s=2d69f01b54d5002/@MHS>
Date: 23 Feb 94 09:23:12 Z
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Michael.R.Storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.d400.de
To: "/c=no/admd= /prmd=uninett/o=uninett/s=Alvestrand/g=Harald/i=T/"@wally-gw.udev.cdc.com
cc: Return requested <mhs-ds@mercury.udev.cdc.com>
Subject: Reply to Re: Reply to MHS-DS at the next IETF

> On the missing-ORG issue, I think that the people are still kind of waiting
> for Steve Kille to come up with The Solution.
> This is not a satisfactory mode of working; we should discuss this, and not
> trust resolution to a single person.

I agree with you. I think problems should be discussed on this list.

> How do *you* like Kevin's solution?
>
>                         Harald A

I think, that the solution from Kevin is the right way to go. I do not see any
other good solution to this problem. In addition this opens new possibilities
to use an algorithmic approach for mapping mail addresses. But I am not sure,
if the proposed rules for the algorithmic mapping are powerful enough. At this
point some additional work could be done, I think.

We should also show, what can be done with this kind of mapping besides fixing
the problem with the empty PRMDs/ORGs. For example, is it possible to put the
whole mapping algorithm of RFC 1327 for one country in the routing tree entry
of this country? When not, what is missing?


--

Michael Storz
================================================================================
                                      !   X.400 : G=michael;S=storz;OU1=lrz;
   Leibniz-Rechenzentrum              !           P=lrz-muenchen;A=d400;C=de
   Barer Str. 21                      !   RFC822: michael.storz@lrz-muenchen.de
   80333 Muenchen                     !   Fax   : ++ 49 89 2809460
   Germany                            !   Tel   : ++ 49 89 2105 8720
================================================================================

Reply to Re: Reply to MHS-DS at the next IETF Michael.R.Storz