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