Re: QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)
pays@faugeres.inria.fr Sat, 13 November 1993 18:31 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03420;
13 Nov 93 13:31 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03416;
13 Nov 93 13:31 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14603;
13 Nov 93 13:31 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP
id <g.03501-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Sat, 13 Nov 1993 18:16:09 +0000
Received: from faugeres.inria.fr by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
id <g.23311-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Sat, 13 Nov 1993 18:15:58 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/; Relayed;
13 Nov 93 19:15:42+0100
Date: 13 Nov 93 19:15:42+0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
To: "(Paul-Andre.PAYS)" <Paul-Andre.Pays@faugeres.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, wright@lbl.gov
Message-ID: <753214542.28049.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@MHS>
>
> Non-leaf DSAs should follow RFC 1276 now and transition to a 93 approach
> ASAP
>
> Steve
I don't agree with that
1. My belief is that it is not sufficient to conform to RFC 1276
because there are some more problems not related to the
replication but really dealing with non conformance
of QUIPU referals
the statement then should be:
Non-leaf DSAs should follow RFC 1276 and not make use of referals!!!
2. It is not realistic to expect any implementation not
conforming to RFC1276 to go that way, as all this will be
changed soon
You are thus more or less banning most other implementations
out of the current service/pilot!!
-- PAP