Re: rfc1495

Ned Freed <NED@sigurd.innosoft.com> Wed, 04 May 1994 23:52 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17879; 4 May 94 19:52 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17875; 4 May 94 19:52 EDT
Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24609; 4 May 94 19:52 EDT
Received: from SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP) id <06178-0@survis.surfnet.nl>; Thu, 5 May 1994 01:40:38 +0200
Received: from SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM by SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V4.4-0 #1234) id <01HBXTVFLCF48Y4ZG7@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM>; Wed, 4 May 1994 16:40:30 PDT
Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 16:38:24 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ned Freed <NED@sigurd.innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: rfc1495
In-reply-to: Your message dated "Wed, 04 May 1994 17:47:17 +0200" <199405041547.AA01784@chandon.inria.fr>
To: Justin Ziegler <Justin.Ziegler@inria.fr>
Cc: mime-mhs@surfnet.nl, ziegler@chandon.inria.fr
Message-id: <01HBY569PNDG8Y4ZG7@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

> I am still studying all the rfcs about gatewaying MIME and X400.

> In particular section 3.2.1.2 of rfc1495 has kept my attention.

> ------------
> 3.2.1.2.  Message/Partial
   
> This is mapped onto a *message*, and the following heading extension is
> used.  The extension is derived from the message/partial parameters:
   
>                        partial-message  HEADING-EXTENSION
>                            VALUE PartialMessage
>                            ::= id-hex-partial-message
   
>                        PartialMessage ::=
>                            SEQUENCE {
>                                number INTEGER,
>                                total  INTEGER,
>                                id     IA5String
>                            }
   
>    If this heading is present when mapping from MHS to MIME, then a
>    message/partial should be generated.
> ------------

In practice I've found that the only viable approach is to reassemble
message/partial objects before passing them off to X.400. However, I think
we still need to provide for a means of carrying them in the X.400 world.

> I guess the word message between stars refers to an
> IPMS.messageBodyPart. But an IPMS.messageBodyPart has a structure,
> and is a sequence of IPMS.BodyParts. The message broken
> into message/partials may also have a structure.
> Thus the partial message must
> be broken into BodyParts if it contains a multipart body.
> The parsing can not be applied separatly to the parts of the
> broken message. The only
> possible solution is that the gateway receives all the parts and
> reassembles them. But a gateway can not be expected to receive all
> the parts, some of them may be sent to other gateways...

I admit I read this as "map onto a part" rather than message, and I agree
that mapping onto a message makes no sense.


> I feel this creates a few problems, that need a bit more
> consideration. Has this already been solved and discussed ??

See above.

				Ned