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