Rep (4) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)

Ascan Woermann <Woermann@osi.e3x.fr> Tue, 16 November 1993 13:03 UTC

X400-Received: by mta haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; Relayed; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:32:11 +0000
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:32:11 +0000
X400-Originator: osi-ds-request@cs.ucl.ac.uk
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; haig.cs.uc.757:16.10.93.11.32.11]
Priority: Non-Urgent
DL-Expansion-History: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk ; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:32:11 +0000;
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ascan Woermann <Woermann@osi.e3x.fr>
Message-ID: <75344824617880woer*/S=Woermann/OU=OSI/O=E3X/PRMD=E3X/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/@MHS>
To: pays@faugeres.inria.fr, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <1523.753436951@glengoyne.isode.com>
References: <75339878516420woer*/S=Woermann/OU=OSI/O=E3X/PRMD=E3X/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/@MHS>
Subject: Rep (4) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)

Steve,

I'm not suggesting that RFC1276 was not successful in early piloting.
However, it is clear, that at least one consequence is a difficulty to 
integrate X.500 (88) systems with the RFC1276 vision. For difficulty you
can also read lack of clarity because no attempt was made to define what
an RFC1276 system should look like to an X.500 (88) system, for example,
in the area of knowledge references. Whilst X.500 (93) may offer standard 
mechanisms lacking in '88, it also provides a generality which can lead
to different choices being made. Thus, I repeat that it is important to 
discuss these real operational issues in some forum.

Ascan
TS-E3X

Rep (4) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Ascan Woermann
Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Steve Kille