Re: Introducing a Directory Service rejected as BCP

[Russ Wright <[e-mail]>]

At 10:02 AM 2/13/96, [e-mail] wrote:
>(this message is for clarifying elements of IETF procedure, not directly
>relevant to the matter at hand)
>
>> Russ Wright:
>>
>> Well, I wasn't going to say anything until I saw that the 2 whois++
>> documents are going to proposed standard.  Where is the implementation
>> experience for any of the indexing stuff?  What is required for the
>> indexing document to go to full standard?  How widely deployed does it have
>> to be?  It would be nice to have a consistent set of rules that we all play
>> by.
>Running code is not required for Proposed Standard; check RFC 1602.

Hi Harald,

Sorry if I didn't make myself very clear...

I didn't mention "running code" and realize running code is not required
for proposed standard (whois++ has running code anyway).

I'm much more interested in what is required to make a directory service
RFC a FULL Internet Standard document.  I don't have any problem w/ whois++
going to proposed standard but I am very worried that it will move to full
standard w/o enough experience.  Whois++ is being touted as a solution to
our global directory problem- well, in my view it shouldn't go to full
standard until it proves that it is up to the task or its description
changed accordingly.

If whois++ is going to replace X.500 as the Internet directory service we
all need to make sure it will scale and provide the service we require
(whatever we think is required).  Don't get me wrong, X.500 alone wouldn't
pass my test as a global directory service for the Internet either.

Russ