Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)
pays@faugeres.inria.fr Tue, 16 November 1993 17:21 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08450;
16 Nov 93 12:21 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08446;
16 Nov 93 12:21 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13622;
16 Nov 93 12:21 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP
id <g.05522-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 15:30:10 +0000
Received: from faugeres.inria.fr by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
id <g.09276-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 15:29:51 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/; Relayed;
16 Nov 93 16:29:24+0100
Date: 16 Nov 93 16:29:24+0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
To: tim@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu, steve.kille@isode.com
Subject: Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)
cc: Woermann@osi.e3x.fr, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Message-ID: <753463764.2580.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@MHS>
Well
let me just ask Steve wether he thinks that the following is related with
RFC 1276 or not
[[Nota: It is just from memory and as Bruno is travelling I would not
guarantee the following, but it was of the kind]]
It seems that in one test with QUIPU we have observed the following situation:
DSA D1 holds the master entry for Object Ob
A a result of a first search we have been returned a reference to D1
As a result of a second search (I cann't remind exactly all the flags)
concerning the same object Ob (but a different operation for sure)
DSA D1 (QUIPU) returned a reference (accesPoint?) to a DSA D2!!!
[[chronologicaly it may have been the other way round -ie first D2 then D1 ]]
Is this related to RFC 1276 and replication or is not (if my recording
of the problem is correct)?
Nota what I wanted initially was to be able to discuss this with
QUIPU experts before all this was on the air and before our OIFP
report is published. I went to the list because I was unable
to get any answer to the initial question.
We are still ready and willing to delay the publishing of this report
(which by no way is a case against QUIPU, there is no implementation name
in it) if a technical discussion starts soon and allows to improve
the content of this report.
regards,
-- PAP
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) pays
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Sylvain Langlois
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Tim Howes
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Julian Onions
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Steve Kille
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) pays
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Christian Huitema
- Rep (4) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Ascan Woermann
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Colin Robbins
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) pays
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Skip Slone
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) pays
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) pays
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Colin Robbins