interest in x.500 implementations Wed, 26 May 1993 17:39 UTC

Received: from 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 by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16632; 26 May 93 13:39 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Wed, 26 May 1993 16:33:32 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; 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
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

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


G. Alpert
ABS Advanced Systems.