[csijmb@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Jason): Survey discussion]

wright@lbl.gov (Russ Wright) Tue, 04 June 1991 16:30 UTC

Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA27668; Tue, 4 Jun 91 12:30:29 -0400
Received: from lbl.gov by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA27664; Tue, 4 Jun 91 12:30:19 -0400
Received: from Mac-mailer (b50b-cnr20.lbl.gov) by lbl.gov (4.1/1.39) id AA28201; Tue, 4 Jun 91 09:31:22 PDT
Message-Id: <9106041631.AA28201@lbl.gov>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 09:30:14
From: wright@lbl.gov (Russ Wright)
To: disi
Subject: [csijmb@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Jason): Survey discussion]

Hi Everyone,
Here is some feedback on the surveys!
        Russ
------- Forwarded Message

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 10:40:24 +1000
From: csijmb@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Jason)
Message-Id: <9106040040.AA16448@luxury.latrobe.edu.au>;
To: wright@Csa2.LBL.Gov
Subject: Survey discussion



Russ,
	G'day, l have been through the surveys and l was wondering if there
was any way of comparing the different implementations available. For example
at CSIRO Andrew Waugh is working on a DUA aimed at an inexperienced user,
whereas Brian May's version is orientated towards an X.500 expert. However,
the surveys which describe implementations of the full X.500 recommendations
simply mention how compliant they are with the specs. There doesnt seem
to be any way of comparing the different types. l guess the only survey that
attempted to show how it's insides worked was the VTT survey. As l dont know
enough about the internals of DSAs yet, l was wondering whether or not there
was an 'easy' way of describing how the whole thing ticks.
	Similarly, the Interoperability section of the survey wasnt terribly
descriptive. Most surveys mentioned that they either were totally 
interoperable
or that they hadnt even tried. A few surveys mentioned an X.500 
interoperbility
test suite being developed by OSInet (l think). Do you know how l could get in
contact with these people? l would presume that there is not much point in 
having a distributed directory standard unless there is some way to prove
that different implementations of the same standard are TOTALLY compatible.
	Also, l have heard about a few other implementations, which have not
yet been mentioned in the current survey results. Apparently there is a 
project
at UBC (l think it is called IAN) however l have only read about it one
article. l have also heard about a DNANS version and a version from BULL, 
again
however l have only ever seen one or two references to these and dont seem to
be able to find out anything else about them. Do you know of these projects or
any others that failed to reply to the survey?
	The only other thing that l wanted to mention was do you think it would
be worthwhile proposing another survey to gain information about applications
which use X.500. For example l know Hewlett Packard is using X.500 in its
MAP project and also someone at UCL has developed a way of creating a 
Telephone
Book from the electronic directory. These applications as well as many others
which many people would not know about, could be useful and if there was a 
place
where teams developing these applications could 'record' their acheivements
then maybe this would help promote X.500 in the Internet community, which
was one of the primary aims of many of the current working groups. Either the
OSI-DS or DISI groups would be suitable and then X.500 applications, which
are public knowledge, would help to accelerate the need for X.500 in all
institutions and organisations.
	l would also be interested to hear what other people have to say about
surveys, maybe you could make them accessible and create some discussion 
before
the RFC is written.

	Regards,
		Jason.




------- End of Forwarded Message