Re: Writing Assignments from the March 11 meeting

[[e-mail] (Allen Sturtevant - ESnet)]

     Actually, I don't see the DISI document as being just like the NOC Tools
Catalogue.  The main difference being that the "product descriptions" in the
NOC Tools Catalogue were voluntarily written by the owner of the product, not a
third party.  The DISI document will be a third party evaluation of existing
X.500 implementations.  I'm concerned that this "third party" approach will
look like we (the IETF) endorse certain products, when that isn't our intent. 

     I believe we should solicit the "owners" of these software products to
submit their own descriptions, and give them some guidelines to work from.  If
they do not respond in a reasonable time, then Ruth and Russ should write up a
description and at least have the product owner approve it.  I can see possible
problems when comparing public domain software to that which can be sold for a
profit.  The company selling X.500 for $$$ may possibly get upset at how the
information is presented.  Also, the "owners" of all X.500 products mentioned
should review the entire document before it becomes an I-D. 

     The DISI document may be *used* like the NOC Tools Catalogue, but the
basis of it's creation is different.  I think it's important to deploy X.500 in
the Internet - I don't want to deter from that.  I just think we should give
this a little more thought. 

Allen