Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!gatech!ncar!ames!lll-tis!jerry.inria.Fr!huitema
From: huitema@jerry.inria.Fr (Christian Huitema)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: Some problems with RFC 987
Message-ID: <8811290930.AA06752@jerry.inria.Fr>
Date: 29 Nov 88 11:30:36 GMT
References: <169:buclin(a)si.di.epfl.ch>
Sender: root@tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov

Regarding the ``Trace'' mapping, I must confess that Mailway did not follow
Steve's recommendation. Actually, we are building up the ``trace'' field
from the ``Received:'' lines -- seems much more natural.

More precisely, the ``Received'' lines contain a host-name and a date; we
map the host name to a PRMD ID: either the PRMD to which the host belong, when
a mapping exists, or the PRMD of the gateway which serves the host, otherwise.
Then, we ``pack'' the traces by removing all duplicat occurences of a PRMD,
keeping only the earliest date as ``date of arrival''; the action is always
set to ``relayed''.

We are indeed loosing some information. This is due to the limited syntax
of the Trace field in 1984-P1; it will be very naturally overcomed with
1988 P1, where we will be able to use the ``internal trace'' field, at least 
for the last PRMD.

In my opinion, the solution described in the RFC-987 is not implementable:
it leads to using invalid ADMD names, and thus forbids the relaying of the 
message to a public ADMD.

Christian Huitema