Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question

[Alf Hansen <[e-mail]>]

Jock,

I think you have a good point here:

> I suggest the issue may well be cycle time.  If X.400 takes longer than 1
> technology cycle to implement, it is doomed to fall ever further behind,
> regardless of its intrinsic qualities.  Look at the American auto industry
> in the 80s.

The question then is: How long is a "technology cycle" in this context? In my
view, the cycle has not expired yet. Good products are starting to come. And
an international X.400 service is provided (organized by the
R&D community itself and by public service providers) with connectivity to the
SMTP world via well defined gateways.

Even if the gateways are "well defined", they are not always "well operated
and managed". Therefore people are often laughing about the poor X.400
quality. Again, returning to what I think is the key issue: Service
management. An high quality X.400 service can be managed very effective with 
the right people and with the right tools.

If we cannot prove this in large global scale before the end of the technology 
cycle (whenever that is..), X.400 will lose its importance.

Best regards,
Alf H

PS. I Cc-ed this message to the IETF X.400 Operations WG such that they also
can follow up this discussion.