tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ need FAQ

PEM ▻

x400 vs internet debate

In article <zdunic.745566658@marsh> zdunic@cs.curtin.edu.au
(Nick Zdunic) writes:
>An article that presents both sides of the x400 vs internet debate is
>available via anonymous ftp from the site: ftp.cs.curtin.edu.au in the
>directory: pub/graphics/morphing, in the file: x400vint.ps

I'm afraid I found this article rather disappointing.  It is in two
halves: The Case for X.400 by Richard Dale, and The Case for Internet
Email by Nick Zdunic.

Clearly the length and intended audience constrain the scope of the
article: one could not expect a detailed analysis of the technical,
administrative, and political issues in two pages.  However, a number
of important points seem to have been missed.

Perhaps the major flaw is that Richard Dale stresses the security
aspects of X.400, yet nowhere is PEM mentioned.  The only hint of it
is in the comment that "extensions [to Internet mail] are just
starting to address [security facilities]", which I feel is hardly an
accurate representation of 97 pages of proposed standard and half a
dozen working (and interoperable) implementations.

Indeed, neither author addresses the points raised by the other.  Nick
Zdunic complains of the X.400 addressing mechanism; Richard of the
lack of Internet Conformance Tests.  Richard praises the broad base of
the X.400 working group; Nick the fast turnaround of Internet working
groups.  This makes it hard to judge the relevance of what each is
saying.

There are some curious anomalies.  Richard states in one sentence
that "Internet...conformance testing is not required", and in the
next that "conformance testing will be required."  Nick claims that
the Internet standards process "can build new features quickly", but
also that "for many years now, users have wanted multimedia."

The title ("X.400 vs. the Internet") is somewhat misleading: "X.400
vs. Internet email" would better reflect the article's scope.

Neither author discusses interworking between X.400 and Internet mail,
which is the scenario for the foreseeable future, rather than "world
dominance" of either system.

Finally, there are numerous typographical errors.

In conclusion, this is an interesting idea and I'd be very keen to see
a more detailed and polished version.  Thanks to both authors,
especially for making the article publicly available.

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin | tim@pipex.net  or | Usenet will also be converted to OSI-based
PIPEX Ltd   | tim@unipalm.co.uk | services in the long term - B Plattner et al.

Original headers:

From: tim@pipex.net (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mime
Subject: Re: x400 vs internet debate
Date: 17 Aug 1993 14:31:37 +0100
Organization: Pipex Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Message-ID: <24qmjq$ofj@tank.pipex.net>
References: <zdunic.745566658@marsh>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ need FAQ

PEM ▻