Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question

Jock Gill <jgill@nsf.gov> Wed, 02 June 1993 01:29 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19044; 1 Jun 93 21:29 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19040; 1 Jun 93 21:29 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03493; 1 Jun 93 21:29 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.11219-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 2 Jun 1993 02:06:04 +0100
Received: from note.nsf.gov by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.17795-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 2 Jun 1993 02:05:55 +0100
Received: from hub.nsf.gov by Note.nsf.gov id aa00842; 1 Jun 93 21:02 EDT
Received: by hub.nsf.gov (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA26817; Tue, 1 Jun 93 21:01:23 -0400
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 21:04:31 -500 (EDT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jock Gill <jgill@nsf.gov>
Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
To: Alan.Young@zh014.ubs.ubs.ch
Cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <"13912 Tue Jun 1 08:27:27 1993"@zh014.ubs.ubs.ch>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05a.9306012130.M28468-a100000@note1.nsf.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Alan,

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.

Regards,
Jock

______________________________________________________________________________
                               Jonathan P. Gill
                           Office of Media Affairs
The White House						        (202) 456-7150
______________________________________________________________________________