X.25 'user' calling address objects

[Ragnar Paulson <[e-mail]>]

> 
>  
> If the X.25 'MIB Standard' (i.e. the document) does not discuss how users
> of X.25 should represent their access to X.25 (such as called address) then
> we promote an inefficient and potentially chaotic and inconsistent collection
> of variations on this.  This means, in general, that if I at layer N+1 wish
> to use a service at layer N and define a MIB for myself, I have to invent
> a way to represent what I send to layer N for addressing information.  This
> applies to ALL users of X.25 in this specific case.
>  
> Note I am not saying the 'X.25 MIB' has to contain objects for this.  I am
> suggesting that the document provide advisory implemention for the MIB
> developers at the layer above.
>  
> If the X.25 MIB folks don't define it, who should?  Every single X.25 user-
> MIB-developer in existance?

Maybe I am misunderstanding this whole discussion but it seems to me
to be more about the interface to X.25 than about managing X.25.  As
such shouldn't these issues be taken up with the working group defining
the interface.  

The origination of the calling address and facilities table was to solve
the problem of mapping IP addresses to X.25 destinations which is
something that has to be configured in almost all instances (the only
exception I know of is the DDN mapping algorithm which only works on the
DDN network).  Trying to generalize this to unknown upper layers with
unknown interfaces may be causing us more grief and complexity than it's
worth.  Any sufficient interface will not need such a table anyways, and
in fact the table may get in the road.

Which brings me to my question, is there a working group for the X.25 
Provide Interface and does anyone know how to get on the mailing list.  

-- 
Ragnar Paulson				email:  ...uunet!tsgfred!ragnar	
The Software Group Limited		or:	[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]