Re: Writing Assignments from the March 11 meeting

[Ruth Lang <[e-mail]>]

Date:    Wed, 20 Mar 91 09:01:06 PST
From: [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

Allen,

Although I'm a bit confused by your wording, I believe that we are in
agreement.  I.e., we do want our document to be
independent/unbiased/descriptive-not-prescriptive like the NOC Tools
Catalogue.  The following is my opinion; Russ and Chris, please chime
in as needed.

I believe that this document should be an unbiased description of
available X.500 implementations.  Russ and I, as "third-parties" do
NOT plan on "evaluating" the various implementations.  We do plan to
use the volunteer writings of implementors and/or product
representatives as much as possible.  I agree with the model you
presented in the first couple of sentences in your paragraph two.

A slight deviation from what you suggested though.  I believe that we
should solicit comments on this after making it an Internet draft; the
step of commitment in this process is transitioning the document to
an RFC/FYI.

Ruth

p.s. - Was there an official note taker at the DISI meeting?  We could
use them, as I remember that this topic was discussed and resolved.