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

["Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)" <[e-mail]>]

David,

From:  "David Herron" <[e-mail]>
To:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)" <dee>  (Non Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested
)
Cc:  Internet Engineering Task Force <[e-mail]>  (Non Receipt Notification Requested) (IP
M Return Requested),
            [e-mail] (Non Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested)
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Thu, 07 Jul 94 14:57:08 -0400.<[e-mail]>
Sensitivity:  Personal
Conversion:  Allowed
Conversion-With-Loss:  Prohibited
Encoding:   28 TEXT 
>>I object to the titles of these internet drafts.
>>...  If those working in the OSI context wish, within
>>that context, to pretent that X.500 is the only directory system, they
>>are welcome to do so.  But I find it misleading, arrogant, and
>>offensive for documents to be initiated in the IETF context which
>>refer to "the Directory" or in some cases just "Directory" when
>>refering to one particular directory system among many.
>>
>>Donald

>Do you also object to:
>
>MHS as used by Novell?

Yes, although I must say that most TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) are so
heavily overloaded that someone who thinks their use will be
immediately recognized outside of their community is usually being
foolish.  The context frequently helps but being explict (such as
including "novell" or "X.400") is really the only geneal answer.

>PC as used by IBM on a particular sort of personal computer they began
>marketing ~ 15 yrs ago?

Yes, however, I do not recall seeing this usage in an RFC or
internet-draft title and the dominance around the world of
ibm-compatible micro-comptuers is such that it could reasonably be
said to have given "PC" a secondary meaning.

>DOS as used by Microsoft even though other DOS's were in existance (hmm..
>well, at least Microsoft had the sense to call it MS-DOS for awhile).

Yes I object but I also admit that the usage of MS-DOS around the
world is so dominant that it could reasonably be said to have given
"DOS" a secondary meaning.

>Windows as used by Microsoft .. they've even gotten the trademark office to
>go along with this one!  Also "Word" (Word for Windows) ..

I find these only faintly annoying.  Windows is not a general
descriptive term for computer desktop management systems.  Word is not
a general descriptive term for text editing/processing systems.
Directory *is* a general descriptive term for all directory/naming
system.  The cases are not at all the same.

>I'm sure that one could list such things for a long time.

I'm sure you could also but so what?  My objection was to, in the IETF
context, attempting to arrogate the general descriptive term
"directory" for one particular non-dominat type of directory system.

>	David

Donald