Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!lll-winken!lll-tis!CS.UCL.AC.UK!steve From: steve@CS.UCL.AC.UK (Steve Kille) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway Subject: Re: Delivery and Nondelivery notifications Message-ID: <9097.584618184@UK.AC.UCL.CS> Date: 11 Jul 88 11:56:24 GMT References: <8806301818.AA10611@polya.sun.com> Sender: root@tis.llnl.gov Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 17 Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov I'm still not sure where to go with this one. Comments: 1) Your original approach lacks generality. 2) Adding attributes is, as you say, ugly. Also, and perhaps more serious, it does not really fit with 822 addressing. X.400 allows you to carry additional information WITH the address. Forcing this info INTO the 822 address is really changing the semantics. 3) Stef's comprimise introduces a nasty issue of cross-correlating stuff. Don't like this at all. On balance, I am inclided to go away and forget about the whole thing! The major issue here is not one of gatewaying. It arises where (as ATT and SUN have done), 987 is used as an interface to the X.400 world. RFC 987 specifically advises against this! Steve