IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sylvain Langlois <Sylvain.Langlois@der.edf.fr> Fri, 08 July 1994 07:25 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18596; 8 Jul 94 3:25 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18586; 8 Jul 94 3:25 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28135; 8 Jul 94 3:24 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18572; 8 Jul 94 3:24 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18544; 8 Jul 94 3:21 EDT
Received: from chenas.inria.fr by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28089; 8 Jul 94 3:21 EDT
Received: from edf.edf.fr by chenas.inria.fr (5.65c8d/92.02.29) via Fnet-EUnet id AA15271; Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:18:59 +0200 (MET)
Received: from cli53an.der.edf.fr by edf.edf.fr with SMTP id AA21499 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4); Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:19:32 +0200
Received: from cli53an.der.edf.fr by cli53an.der.edf.fr (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20369; Fri, 8 Jul 94 09:19:20 +0100
To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)" <dee@skidrow.lkg.dec.com>
Cc: Internet Engineering Task Force <ietf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>, dee@lkg.dec.com
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mhsds-subtrees-05, draft-ietf-mhsds-infotree-05, draft-ietf-mhsds-routdirectory-05
In-Reply-To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)"'s message of Thu, 07 Jul 1994 14:57:08 -0400. <9407071857.AA10371@skidrow.lkg.dec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 1994 09:19:16 +0100
Message-Id: <20368.773655556@cli53an.der.edf.fr>
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Sylvain Langlois <Sylvain.Langlois@der.edf.fr>

> There are many directory systems being developed by many standards and
> proprietary groups.  

This is  absolutely true and  I  guess  nobody from the MHS-DS WG will
ever deny this point.

> 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. 

Sylvain
----------------
Sylvain.Langlois@der.edf.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email