Survey results : Comments

csijmb@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Jason) Tue, 04 June 1991 22:12 UTC

Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA04808; Tue, 4 Jun 91 18:12:55 -0400
Received: from luga.latrobe.edu.au by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA04804; Tue, 4 Jun 91 18:12:48 -0400
Received: from luxury.latrobe.edu.au by luga.latrobe.edu.au with SMTP id AA04609 (5.65+/IDA-1.3.5/LTU-1.0 for disi@merit.edu); Wed, 5 Jun 91 08:14:38 +1000
Received: by luxury.latrobe.edu.au (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/4.03) id AA07915; Wed, 5 Jun 91 08:12:13 +1000
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 08:12:13 +1000
From: csijmb@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Jason)
Message-Id: <9106042212.AA07915@luxury.latrobe.edu.au>
To: disi
Subject: Survey results : Comments

Russ,
	Something else that l forgot to add to the last message :

	Would it be possible to get each of the actual X.500 implementations
to include a section on how their implementation handles the areas that 
the standard avoids. ie: access control, replication, etc.
	It might be useful to see whether or not some of non-Quipu
implementations have devised their own interim solution or not. If you think
this might be useful maybe you could give me the list of people who sent you
the messages and l'll get in contact with them...

	Also, the implementations that say "based on ...". Do they provide
any further information ? What, is it exactly the same as the version it is 
based on or have they taken the original implementation and improved it out
of sight ?

Jason.