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