interest in x.500 implementations
ALPERT@rchvmv.vnet.ibm.com Wed, 26 May 1993 17:39 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10102; 26 May 93 13:39 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10097; 26 May 93 13:39 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16632; 26 May 93 13:39 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.03781-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 26 May 1993 16:33:32 +0100
Received: from vnet.ibm.com by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.21716-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 26 May 1993 16:33:05 +0100
Received: from RCHVMV by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4192; Wed, 26 May 93 11:31:45 EDT
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 10:04:54 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: ALPERT@rchvmv.vnet.ibm.com
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: interest in x.500 implementations
Message-ID: <9305261339.aa16632@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
hello: just a practical query. We here in abs (application business systems of IBM or otherwise known as as/400 land) debate which is the best distributed and 'open' directory structure to implement on our platform. It appears very confusing, as some companies openly tout their X.400 capabilities, like HP OpenMail or Novell, but then implement a 'proprietary' directory product that is replicatable and distributable but X.500 'like' but not X.500????. Why not?? Then, when I think well DCE has GDS and that may really help X.500 take off and solve some problems, they semi decommit and push CDS or now DNS, complicating matters worse. What are your thoughts in this area? Where do CDS and DNS fail? How well received and x.500 like is Novell's or Banyan's reknowned directory support? Thanks G. Alpert ABS Advanced Systems.