Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question

"Eric D. Williams" <eric@isci.com> Wed, 02 June 1993 18:27 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12040; 2 Jun 93 14:27 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12036; 2 Jun 93 14:27 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06462; 2 Jun 93 14:27 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.03922-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 2 Jun 1993 17:50:53 +0100
Received: from uu5.psi.com by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.13253-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 2 Jun 1993 17:50:18 +0100
Received: from port8.reston.pub-ip.psi.net by uu5.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; id AA02184 for osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk; Wed, 2 Jun 93 12:49:50 -0400
Message-Id: <9306021649.AA02184@uu5.psi.com>
Received: from isc1.isci.com by isc1.isci.com id <2214-0@isc1.isci.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 1993 12:46:44 +0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Eric D. Williams" <eric@isci.com>
Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
To: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
Cc: Alan.Young@zh014.ubs.ubs.ch, jgill@nsf.gov, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 12:46:40 EDT
In-Reply-To: Your message of 02 Jun 93 08:13:42+0200.<739001622.18198.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@MHS>
Sensitivity: Personal
Conversion: Prohibited
Conversion-With-Loss: Prohibited
Encoding: 32 TEXT , 4 TEXT

>Date: 02 Jun 93 08:13:42+0200
>From: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
>To: Alan.Young@zh014.ubs.ubs.ch, jgill@nsf.gov
>Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
>
>Please could you move this debate to an appropriate list
>not the one dealing with X.500.
>
>Thanks
>
>-- PAP
>
>

I believe the original intent of introducing this question to the OSI-DS list
was to garner responses, representative of the relationship of messaging to
directory services.  This being the case, it may be more constructive to focus
on the implications of X.400(88-??) standards as they relate to X.500(88-??)
standards; as well as X.500 integration and coexistence with legacy systems ie.
RFC822/SMTP Mail, PROFS, et. al.

I think the current flavor of the debate has digressed somewhat.  However,
implemetation considerations for Messaging systems, the cycle time of
technology, the complexity of implementation, and effective technology
integration all require concensus among the affected parties.  Thus my
recommendation, spread the debate to other affected technology discussion
groups.  Or resolve some key technology issues (read this as Directory Services
on which all future communications technology will depend) and then move on.

Peace,

Eric

  Eric D. Williams     Integrated Systems and Communications, Inc.        ISC
1899 L Street N.W. Suite 500 - Washington, DC 20036-3884 - Voice +1(202)331-3990
 ewilliams@isci.com or guru@isci.com - Fax +1(202)331-4049 or +1(202)872-0896
 "Implementing, Transitioning, and Coexisting means Integrated Solutions, Now!!"