Re: draft-ietf-mhsds-subtrees-05, draft-ietf-mhsds-infotree-05, draft-ietf-mhsds

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

(I'm choosing to respond to Alyson's submission (Hi, Alyson; it's been
awhile) since she raises a rather interesting point, but my note is
intended to pertain to the more general discussion.)

At 1:11 PM 7/9/94, Alyson L Abramowitz wrote:
>It might have been appropriate to gripe about the name of The Directory
>back in 1985-88,  when it was initially developed.  The reality is it

But such griping was only possible by the participants, and that set of
people was and is far more limited that the 'general' population who
participate in the Internet work.  Besides, we need to take note of the
fact that was cited earlier:  this is a different community and such minor
issues as document titling need to be done with attention to issues of
utility and clarity within THIS community.  Besides, if all this previous
work were such a solid fait accompli, we would not need to be doing the
current work, to make it viable.

>It is also the case that The Directory is standardized beyond
>X.500 (e.g. in ISO 9594 and other industry documents).  It is also
>used significantly (and one could argue primarily) beyond OSI.  So

A precise and distinguishing string needs to be used.  "The Directory"
doesn't suffice.  I doubt that folks who object to "The Directory" care
much whether the string used to qualify is "X.500" or something else.  My
own recommendation is to use "X.500" in spite of the formal problems with
it, since it is the string in common use and will be most easily recognized
and understood.  In the case of X.400, this is particularly appropriate,
since it was originated by CCITT; X.500 is problematic since it was a joint
CCITT/ISO effort.  If you want to call it "The ISO/CCITT Directory", fine.

>to refer The Directory as an OSI effort exclusively is to deny its
>reality in the much larger context in which it lives.

The issue really has nothing to do with denying anything about this work.
While one or another person might have strong opinions about the work, I
believe that the real issue is in participating in the Internet work in a
manner that is helpful rather than confusing or otherwise problematic.

>So you may not like the names The Directory,  PC,  or Word.  They are
>the realities of the world.  In order to communicate effectively

Terms like PC or MHS very much ARE realities.

A term like "The Directory" is not.  It is a solid reality within a very
small part of an obscure technical world.  A larger part of that obscure
technical world (i.e., the IETF) doesn't have a standard label for that
work and definitely DOES have other work that is related and/or competing.
If you want to argue about accepting reality, then I suggest that we deal
with this fact of alternative and related efforts and try to live with it
comfortably, rather than telling folks to like it or lump it.


NITTY GRITTY:

What prompted me to send this note is the fact that very nearly every
publication submission for X.400 or X.500 related work has had this
problem.  It is quite irritating and extremely counter-productive for this
problem to persist and it really would be quite helpful if the proponents
of the effort would start submitting documents with names that worked
better in this community.


Dave

[phone]  (fax:  [phone])