Postmaster@cs.ucl.ac.uk Tue, 25 May 1993 15:46 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05573; 25 May 93 11:46 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05565; 25 May 93 11:46 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11411; 25 May 93 11:45 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.03224-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 25 May 1993 15:09:21 +0100
Received: from cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.03223-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 25 May 1993 15:08:37 +0100
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject:
Date: Tue, 25 May 93 15:08:30 +0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Postmaster@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Message-ID: <9305251146.aa11411@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

------- Forwarded Message

Return-Path: <sgoldste@gov.nsf.cise.cise>
Received: from cise.cise.nsf.gov by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP 
          id <g.02395-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>uk>; Tue, 25 May 1993 15:04:18 +0100
Received: by cise.cise.nsf.gov id <AA08867@cise.cise.nsf.gov>ov>;
          Tue, 25 May 93 10:03:50 -0400
Message-Id: <9305251403.AA08867@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
To: /PN=TOM.DEWITT/O=GSA2/PRMD=GOV+GSA2/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@com.sprint
Cc: osi-ds-request@uk.ac.ucl.cs, cargille@edu.wisc.cs, jgill@gov.nsf
In-Reply-To: Your message of "24 May 93 13:03:53 -0800." <9305250834.aa29578@Note.nsf.gov>
Date: Tue, 25 May 93 10:03:42 EDT
From: Steve Goldstein--Ph +1-202-357-9717 <sgoldste@gov.nsf.cise.cise>

In asking <<... "I am wondering what over-all, total, advantage X.400 offers?" 
and "I would like to see a comparative analysis of TCP/IP versus X.400".>>
Jock risks opening religious wars once again.

Jock, they do much the same thing, or at least, they are being used
principally for the same thing.  X.400 has a lot more potential for
other services (FAX, Telex, snail mail delivery at the local end)
built in --note: "potential"-- however, the TCP/IP crowd manages to
tack similar capabilities onto their stack whenever it seems that people
are going to actually use capabilities under deployment in X.400.  X.400,
by the way, is actually a lot of X.400's: 1984, 1988,..., and commercial
offerors tend to offer only the 1984 version which is not full-functioned.
Not all SMTP (TCP/IP's messaging application) implementations support all the
new spiffies that have been offered (I cannot use Multi-Media extensions
here at NSF, for example...:-( ).  

So, the real question ought'a be: "How can we make services as seamless as
possible among communities that for one reason or another use different, 
but complementary protocol stacks?"


- --Steve G.

+ ======================================================================== +
||  Steven N. Goldstein                                                   ||
||  Program Director, Interagency & International Networking Coordination ||
||  Div. of Networking and Communications Research & Infrastructure       ||
||  National Science Foundation                                           ||
||  1800 G Street, N.W., Room 416                                         ||
||  Washington, D.C. 20550                                                ||
||  Tel: +1-202-357-9717                                                  ||
||  FAX: +1-202-357-5865                                                  ||
||  goldstein@NSF.GOV (Internet); goldstei@NSF(BITNET); S.GOLDSTEIN/OMNET ||
+ ======================================================================== +


------- End of Forwarded Message
  •   Postmaster