Re: Whois++ and X.500

Paul-Andre Pays <> Wed, 27 September 1995 19:57 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16340; 27 Sep 95 15:57 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16336; 27 Sep 95 15:56 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18963; 27 Sep 95 15:56 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 17:37:30 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 17:37:12 +0100
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA03931; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 17:37:06 +0100
Message-Id: <v01530505ac8f248dac46@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 17:37:08 +0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul-Andre Pays <>
Subject: Re: Whois++ and X.500

>p.s. PAP, we were told that SOLO is nearly dead now, is this the case?


My personal view is
   I personaly haven't any spare time to devote to progressing the specs
        and prototypes
   I  have the feeling, from the qietness of the Solo list, that the few
        other people which once contributed are also either too busy
        or not interested any more in progressing the Solo effort
   By internet standards, as the Solo document has not changed in due
        time I understand that Solo is dead today. Maybe it can be
        revived if a group takes over, produces a new draft aso...

-- PAP

PS: I regret this situation, as I thought, especially with the CIP agreement,
  1. there was room for more than whois++ with this index technology
  2. than Solo has its own properties and qualities
  3. than Solo was in addition one possible "go-between" between indexes and
        existing X.500 data-bases
but the fact is Solo does not progress any more, which means Solo is dead.

PS2: the question wether X.500 is not dead because it can encompass
CIP and centroids is just a matter of terminology. My deep feeling is that
X.500 as such is dead.
Of course several good concepts will remain and have been adopted by
others such as whois++. Of course some PTTs will still use X.500.
Of course some products such as NDS will provide the X.500 protocols.
The really used and sold products will not be X.500 (once it appears
clear there is no longer any good marketing reason to exhibit the X.500
name to sell a good directory product or service - the fact that part or
all or none of X.500 still exists in these product will be irrelevant).
I personaly still support DN as one of the few good naming schemes,
this does not imply that objects identified by a DN must be managed
by a DSA according to a DIT structure.
Another view: would you still "term X.500" a product which provides
UDP based lookup access (Solo like , not ldap like) which
have plenty of centroids meshes for navigation, which will use
Harvest gathering technology rather than DISP etc... etc...
just because it would be able to contain entries identified by a DN
and similar to what can be achieved with today X.500?
I understand you would be right to say it is an "extended X.500", I feel
right to prentend it is no longer X.500.

Finaly the terminology is of no importance for me, as long as
  1. we are converging on the concept and functionalities
  2. products are available
  3. the technology is used
  4. decent services can be and are actually deployed
in the directory domain.

     tel:  +33 1 34 52 00 88                fax: +33 1 34 52 25 26
         GC Tech   "The Globe Online and Globe ID Technology Company"