From: Paul.Rarey@ssf-sys.dhl.com ("Paul.Rarey")
Subject: Re: X400 address
Encoding: 58 TEXT, 12 TEXT SIGNATURE
X-Mailer: Poste 2.0
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:37:41 GMT


> Paul.Rarey@ssf-sys.dhl.com (Paul.Rarey) writes:
> ...
> : All  that  is  really  needed is  a  naming  authority  appropriately
> : chartered  by  commercial  enterprise or where  necessary,  by  local
> : government.  I don't mean to over trivialize the issue, but we're not
> : inventing  something  here.  There is plenty of foundation of how  to
> : manage unambiguous names within a hierarchy.
>
> You're missing my point: it's simply -too- late in most western countries,
> they already -have- multiple ADMD's allocating PRMD`s without central
> coordination.
> If you can convince all the ADMD's in the US (for example) to change
> their PRMD's to be unique, congratulations (just think about what it
> costs a PRMD owner to change his address).

You're  right.   I did miss your point.  Following this your  meaning
now,  "-too-  late" to me means either near death, or not  worth  the
effort,  (obviously  near death is not worth it...).   Attempting  to
stay away from "religion" here, I don't think X.400 is near death, so
the  question  becomes...:  is transitioning to an  "ambiguous"  ADMD
attribute value worth it...?

This  would  depend  on  ones commitment  (or  dependance)  on  X.400
services, and the impact of usage on the bottom line of ones company.
Personally, I would rather bite the bullet now, than to pay the price
later.   The  "price"  being  that "my" ADMD kept  prices  "just  low
enough"  to not warrant transition another ADMD, (thus O/R addressing
transition  issues),  but  significantly higher than what  one  could
achieve by openly bidding an RFP every few years.

Also,  in this scenario, RFP's could only really be done once in  the
lifetime of any PRMD/ADMD O/R schema, thus supplemental RFPs would be
moot,  unless  one accepted the fact the their O/R  addressing  would
change.

Looking  at this on a subscriber by subscriber basis, providers as  a
whole  probably  won't  do  much to  facilitate  ADMD  ambiguous  O/R
addressing.   However, via associations such as the EMA, EEMA and the
latest association in Japan, the collective effort of subscribers can
and are having an impact.

It  would  be  possible  to apply "technology"  within  the  PRMD  to
re-write  P1/P2 Originator/Recipient addressing...ugh...!  Did I  say
that...?  I expect a flood telling me this is not "legal" and to core
dump the thought....

In  any case, I believe it is in the best interest of the  subscriber
community  to  leverage the transition to ambiguous ADMD  addressing,
even  given  the hurdle you correctly bring to light.  Over the  long
haul, X.400 subscribers will be better off for it.

....pay me now or pay me later, I'm gonna get paid....

>
>                       Simon
> --
> CHUUG/EUnet Switzerland                               Simon Poole



    Best regards...,


    Paul S. Rarey           DHL Systems Inc.
    Open Systems Research   1700 S Amphlett Blvd  Phn: (415) 358-5522
    Global Communications   San Mateo, CA  94402  FAX: (415) 571-7073

    INet:      Paul.Rarey@ssf-sys.DHL.COM
    X400:      PN=Paul.Rarey;O=SYSTEMS;P=DHL;A=MARK400;C=US