Directory vs "X.500 Directory"
Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com> Fri, 29 July 1994 11:10 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01181; 29 Jul 94 7:10 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01177; 29 Jul 94 7:10 EDT
Received: from mercury91.udev.cdc.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03057; 29 Jul 94 7:10 EDT
Received: by mercury.udev.cdc.com; Fri, 29 Jul 94 06:10:26 -0500
X-From: S.Kille@isode.com Fri Jul 29 06:10 CDT 1994
Received: from zeus.cdc.com by mercury.udev.cdc.com; Fri, 29 Jul 94 06:10:24 -0500
Received: from glengoyne.isode.com by zeus.cdc.com; Fri, 29 Jul 94 06:10:20 -0500
To: mhs-ds@mercury.udev.cdc.com
Subject: Directory vs "X.500 Directory"
Phone: +44-81-332-9091
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <25945.775479707.1@glengoyne.isode.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 12:01:49 +0100
Message-ID: <25946.775479709@glengoyne.isode.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
I have just reviewed the IETF correspondence on this. The meeting we held on Wednesday decided not to change the titles. I believe that we should reverse this decision, and change the titles to use the wording "X.500 Directory". The arguments presented persuaded me that it was a useful clarification, and this weighs heavier than CCITT/ISO problems. Unless I hear objection, I will be changing the titles as an editorial action. Steve
- Directory vs "X.500 Directory" Steve Kille
- Re: Directory vs "X.500 Directory" Harald T. Alvestrand