RFC 1838 (rfc1838) - Page 2 of 8

Use of the X

RFC 1838             RFC 822/X.400 Mapping by X.500          August 1995


          An alternative approach which is not taken is to locate the
          information in the routing subtrees.  The benefits of this
          would be:

        o  It is the "natural" location, and will also help to
           ensure correct administrative authority for a mapping
           definition.

        o  The tree will usually be accessed for routing, and so it
           will be efficient for addresses which are being routed.

          This is not done, as the benefits of the approach proposed
          are greater.

   There are three mappings, which are represented by two subtrees
   located under:

   OU=X.400/RFC 822 Mapping,  O=Internet

   These subtree roots are of object class subtree, and use the
   mechanism for representing subtrees defined in [4].

   X.400 to RFC 822 This table gives the equivalence mapping from X.400
       to RFC 822.  There is an O/R Address tree under this.  An example
       entry is:

       PRMD=UK.AC, ADMD=Gold 400, C=GB, CN=X.400 to RFC 822,
       OU=X.400/RFC 822 Mapping,  O=Internet


   RFC 822 to X.400 There is a domain tree under this.  This table holds
       the equivalence mapping from RFC 822 to X.400, and the gateway
       mapping defined in RFC 1327.  An example entry is:

       DomainComponent=ISODE, DomainComponent=COM,
       CN=RFC 822 to X.400,
       OU=X.400/RFC 822 Mapping,  O=Internet

   The values of the table mapping are defined by use of two new object
   classes, as specified in Figure 1.  The objects give pointers to the
   mapped components.










Kille                         Experimental