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

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

Hi Alyson,

Long time no see...

From:  Alyson L Abramowitz <[e-mail]>
To:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)" <dee>
Cc:  [e-mail]
Sender:  [e-mail]
In-Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization:   

>Donald and everyone:

>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
>that was the name which was choosen.  I remember no one in or outside
>of the standards community,  commercial community,  or university
>community objecting.  This INCLUDES DEC,  which I represented at some
>of those initial directory efforts.  Sorry Don.

I had no involvement in whatever decisions were made within the OSI
community in 1985-88.  People who wish, for whatever reason, to work
on OSI standards efforts are welcome to use whatever term they wish
inside their own community.  When they specifically introduce a
document into the IETF context, I should think that a desire to
communicate clearly or even mere politeness would be sufficient reason
to qualify terms whose meaning is clear only within the OSI community
and its fringes.  Even if the term "The Directory" was clear throught
all computer standards contexts in the late 1980s, it isn't now and we
are talking about a document being introduced now.

It has been the policy of the IETF to *require* that "X.500" or
similar clarifying quaification be added at the RFC stage.  I had not
bothered to protest these misleading titles earlier becasue they were
"just internet-drafts" but the more I thought about it more it seemed
to me that misleading titles are bad at all stages.

For some reason the author of these drafts and others in the OSI
community have not yet thanked me for making a suggestion that would
improve the likihood that their contributions will be viewed
positively in the IETF community.  :-)

As is normally the case in the IETF context, I speak only for myself,
not for DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) of whom I have been an
employee for only a brief period.  I have had no involvement
whatsoever in the formulation of DEC's product strategy in the email
and directory areas.

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

I will agree that X.500 like stuff is used in some contexts beyond
OSI.  From what I have seen, the term "The Dirctory" however, is
almost exclusively restricted to the OSI community.

>So you may not like the names The Directory,  PC,  or Word.  They are
>the realities of the world.  In order to communicate effectively
>they are the proper and accepted terms to use.  One cannot rewrite
>history or common usage and effectively enforce it.

The meaning of almost all terms is context dependent.  PC and Word are
realities in the general computer context (but have little to do with
stadards activities).  "The Directory" is, at the present time, a
reality only in the OSI context.  It is not a reality in the IETF and
I do not think it is likely to become so in the near future.

>Best,
>Alyson

Donald