Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)

pays@faugeres.inria.fr Tue, 16 November 1993 10:57 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00539; 16 Nov 93 5:57 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00534; 16 Nov 93 5:57 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03096; 16 Nov 93 5:57 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.03186-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 10:33:34 +0000
Received: from faugeres.inria.fr by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.12603-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 10:33:08 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/; Relayed; 16 Nov 93 11:32:55+0100
Date: 16 Nov 93 11:32:55+0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
To: Woermann@osi.e3x.fr, steve.kille@isode.com
Subject: Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, pays@faugeres.inria.fr
Message-ID: <753445975.24278.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@MHS>


Steve,

I am extremely disapointed by your reaction.

I understand that you have now commercial interest in this, but 
I know you are able to have a much more scientific approach
of this problem.


I don't want to get into a dispute, but then I want that it is stated clearly
that either
   the Paradise pilot is a Quipu pilot 
	(because the statement that RFC1276 is the only key is FALSE)
   or it is an X.500 pilot
	(then QUIPU should be fixed asap, because it is not suited
	as such for what it is been used for)
so that each one will decide on its own.

Moreover I don't understand why you oppose so strongly discussing
   quietly the real interworking problems and just dismiss everything
   inelegantly. Anyhow the OIFP report will be published in a matter of
   days now and everyone will be able to technically make his own mind,
   and then decide what they need (and not what the IC has decided
   should be the truth!)

regards,

-- PAP