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

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

From:  Sylvain Langlois <[e-mail]>
To:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)" <dee>
Cc:  Internet Engineering Task Force <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
In-Reply-To:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)"'s message of Thu, 07 Jul 1994 14:57:08 -0400.<9407071857
[e-mail]> 
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender:  [e-mail]

>> 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. 
>
>I  will object  that,  in all  ISO, ITU and many other groups, there  is a
>"agreement" on the way you spell Directory when you  refer to the X.500
>protocols. You  should  have noticed the upper-case "D". The Directory
>is only one possible solution in the directory technologies. 

There is no such agreement in the IETF or in the real world.  I
continue to fine the titles of these drafts to be misleading, arrogant,
and offensive.  They should all be amended by adding "X.500" or some
similar claifying and qualifying term.  The upper case D it totally
and completely inadquate, especially in titles where words normally
begin with an upper case letter.

I disagree with you on another point.  I do not believe that X.500 is
a solution for anything but is more of a problem than a solution.

>Sylvain
>----------------
>[e-mail]

Donald