Addendum to RFC 987: (Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822)
RFC 1026

Document Type RFC - Unknown (September 1987; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 1327, RFC 2156
Updated by RFC 1148, RFC 1138
Updates RFC 987
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream Legacy
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Legacy state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 1026 (Unknown)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          S.E. Kille
Request for Comments 1026                       University College London
                                                           September 1987

                         Addendum to RFC 987

                 (Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822)

Status of this Memo

   This RFC suggest a proposed protocol for the Internet community, and
   requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.  Distribution
   of this memo is unlimited.

   This document specifies a number of additions and corrections to
   RFC-987, aka Mailgroup Note 19.

   The addendum carries equal weight to the original specification,
   which must be used when this mapping is performed on the Internet or
   in the UK Academic Community.  This mapping may also be used within
   the RARE community in Europe.  This specification may be modified in
   the light of implementation experience, but no substantial changes
   are expected.

1.  Errata

   -    In section 4.6.4, replace ".." with ".".

   -    In section 4.2.4, replace three references to 4.3.1 by
        4.2.1, and one reference to 4.2.2 by 4.1.2.

   -    In section 5.2, replace "1  mailbox" with "1#mailbox",
        "1 msg-id" with "1#msg-id" and "1 encoded-type" with
        "1#encoded-type".

2.  Component Ordering

   In most cases, ordering of O/R name components is not significant for
   the mappings specified by this document.  However, Organisational
   Units and Domain Defined Attributes are specified as SEQUENCE, in
   P1.ORName, and so their order may be significant.  This specification
   needs to take account of this in two ways:

   1)   To allow consistent mapping into the domain hierarchy

   2)   To ensure preservation of order over multiple mappings.

Kille                                                           [Page 1]
RFC 1026                                                  September 1987

There are three places where an order must be specified:

   1)   On the text encoding (std-orname) of P1.ORName as used in the
        local-part of an RFC-822 address, the most significant component
        must be on the RHS.  This applies only to those components which
        may have multiple values (Organisational Unit, and Domain
        Defined Attributes).  Other attributes may be presented in any
        order. Note that in dmn-orname specified in Appendix F, this
        ordering is already implied by the current ordering
        requirements.

   2)   For the Organisational Units (OU) in P1.ORName, the first OU in
        the SEQUENCE is the most signicicant.  This follows the
        "natural" hierarchy of the specification of P1.ORName, where the
        most significant components are defined first.

   3)   For the Domain Defined Attributes in P1.ORName, the First Domain
        Defined Attribute in the SEQUENCE is the most significant.

   Note that although the ordering defined in 2) and 3) is mandatory for
   this mapping, there are NO implications on ordering significance
   within X.400.

   3.  Extensions To Deal with Omitted Components

   Implementation of RFC-987 has proved to be a little inflexible for
   some naming strategies.  In particular, there are some difficulties
   where Organisation or PRMD is omitted:

   The following sentence of RFC-987 should be removed: 4.2.1 (Page 27):
   "If one of the hierarchical components is omitted ....  tuple).".

   The strategy proposed is to introduce the concept of explicit missing
   components to the symmetrical mapping described in 4.2.1.
   Essentially, a domain may be associated with an omitted attribute in
   conjuction with several present ones.  When performing the
   algorithmic insertion of components lower in the hierarchy, the
   omitted value should be skipped.  For example, if "GMD.DFN" is
   associated with "C=DE", "ADMD=DBP", "PRMD=GMD", and omitted
   organisation, then "ZI.GMD.DFN" is mapped with "C=DE", "ADMD=DBP",
   "PRMD=GMD", "OU=ZI".  It should be noted that attributes may have
   null values, and that this is treated separately from omitted
   attributes (whilst it would be bad practice to treat these two cases
   differently, they must be allowed for in practice).

Kille                                                           [Page 2]
RFC 1026                                                  September 1987

   To allow the mapping of null organisations to be represented in the
   specification of Appendix F, the dmn-orname syntax is extended, so
   that values may be given the symbol "@" (not a printable string
   character). This corresponds to an omitted attribute. The new
   definition is:

           dmn-orname      = dmn-part *( "." dmn-part )
           dmn-part        = attribute "$" value
           attribute       = standard-type
                           / "~" dmn-printablestring
           value           = dmn-printablestring
                           / "@"
           dmn-printablestring
Show full document text