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

[Mark Crispin <[e-mail]>]

Alyson,

     I also remember you telling me 10 or so years ago that X.400 was going to
kill RFC-822; that *EVERY* vendor was solidly behind X.400 and eager to kill
RFC-822 mail.  Perhaps in this question, too, you are jumping the gun.

     I do not see how a decision made inside the OSI context affects the IETF
context in the absence of the agreement of the IETF.  The 1985-88 decision was
not a decision of the IETF; and whether that decision is ratified or rejected
by the IETF remains to be seen.

     I think that Don's point was that using the unqualified term ``The
Directory'' in IETF documents implies a fait accompli.  There are individuals
who dispute this point.  Pending a formal IESG decision that the term ``The
Directory'' in the IETF sense refers exclusively to the X.500 sense, it seems
to me to be preferable to use greater qualification.

     Attempts to present a matter as a fait accompli are likely to stiffen and
strengthen opposition.  It won't be the first time that a proposal has been
rejected because the proponents were perceived as attempting to ram it through
without judgement or recourse.

-- Mark --