RFC 1838 (rfc1838) - Page 2 of 8
Use of the X
Alternative Format: Original Text Document
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
