RFC 1615: Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document compares X.400(88) to X.400(84) and describes what problems can be anticipated in the migration, especially considering the migration from the existing X.400(84) infrastructure created by the COSINE MHS project to an X.400(88) infrastructure. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC1615
- Published
- May 1994
- Authors
- J. Houttuin; J. Craigie
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- Legacy
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 17
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 1616X.400(1988) for the Academic and Research Community in EuropeCurrent
May 1994
- RFC 1617Naming and Structuring Guidelines for X.500 Directory PilotsCurrent
May 1994
- RFC 1614Network Access to Multimedia InformationCurrent
May 1994
- RFC 1357A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic RecordsObsoleted
July 1992
- RFC 1590Media Type Registration ProcedureObsoleted
March 1994
- RFC 1563The text/enriched MIME Content-typeObsoleted
January 1994
- RFC 1685Writing X.400 O/R NamesCurrent
August 1994
- RFC 1524A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia Mail Format InformationCurrent
September 1993
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?