Alive and well in LDAP as a syntactic form. So, strongly alive in
functional systems worldwide, and in X.509 certificates.
As a typed entity in email addresses? NOPE.
-G
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:17 AM Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:43 PM Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 8:03 AM Noel Chiappa <jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Warner Losh
a bunch of OSI/ISO network stack posters (thank
goodness that didn't
become standard, woof!)
Why?
Posters like this :). OSI was massively over specified...
oops. Hit the list limit.
Posters like this:
https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/20190203_215836.jpg
which show just how over-specified it was. I also worked at The Wollongong Group back in
the early 90's and it was a total dog on the SysV 386 machines that we were trying to
demo it on. A total and unbelievable PITA to set it up, and crappy performance once we got
it going. Almost bad enough that we didn't show it at the trade show we were going
to.... And that was just the lower layers of the stack plus basic name service. x.400
email addresses were also somewhat overly verbose. In many ways, it was a classic second
system effect because they were trying to fix everything they thought was wrong with
TCP/IP at the time without really, truly knowing the differences between actual problems
and mere annoyances and how to properly weight the severity of the issue in coming up with
their solutions.
So x.400 vs smtp mail addresses:
"G=Warner;S=Losh;O=WarnerLoshConsulting;PRMD=bsdimp;A=comcast;C=us" vis
"imp(a)bsdimp.com"
(assuming I got all the weird bits of the x.400 address right, it's been a long time
and google had no good examples on the first page I could just steal...) The x.400
addresses were so unwieldy that a directory service was added on top of them x.500, which
was every bit as baroque IIRC.
TP4 might not have been that bad, but all the stuff above it was kinda crazy...
Warner