Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses

Jean-Paul Le Guigner <Jean-Paul.Le-Guigner@univ-rennes1.fr> Wed, 26 May 1993 08:58 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01065; 26 May 93 4:58 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01061; 26 May 93 4:58 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03047; 26 May 93 4:58 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.01489-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 26 May 1993 08:37:55 +0100
Received: from mailimailo.cicb.fr by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.18701-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 26 May 1993 08:37:47 +0100
Received: from mailimailo.cicb.fr by mailimailo.univ-rennes1.fr (5.65c8/150391); Wed, 26 May 1993 09:34:58 +0200
Message-Id: <199305260734.AA16316@mailimailo.univ-rennes1.fr>
To: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
Cc: P.Furniss@ulcc.ac.uk, yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov, C.B.Stathopoulos@ics.forth.gr, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses
In-Reply-To: 26 May 93 08:29:20 +0100. <738397760.25664.0-faugeres.inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 26 May 93 09:34:56 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jean-Paul Le Guigner <Jean-Paul.Le-Guigner@univ-rennes1.fr>

|    > From: Peter Yee <yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov>
|    
|    > 
|    > >3. On a side issue (and at some risk of pedantry) why are we talking
|    > >about machines ? A presentation address identifies a *process*
|    > >(strictly, an application entity that is the projection of an
|    > >application process into the communications environment), and the
|    > >process may move from one machine to another. Yes, it makes sense to
|    > >think of the process as being the machine if you want to login to it,
|    > >but probably not if you after something with access to a distributed
|    > >database or the like. service = machine is rather old-fashioned.
|    > 
|    > Sure it's old-fashioned.  But for most cases of presentation addresses
|    > it is acceptable.  We have enough problems with naming machines and
|    > processes withough worrying about how X.500 will handle things that
|    > move (particularly if they move frequently).
|    > 
|    > 							-Peter
|    

Shorter comment than PAP.

I am convince there's a need to store both "the machine" and "applications"
entries.

   - machines entries with their NSAPs, so that a user can then
     by adding "generic" selectors play (well that's not the right term)
     with the system he is wishes to work with.
     Usually only experts perhaps will need these type of entries.

   - Application Entities, with their PSAP address.
     This already exists in the DNS world actually, but in a "hidden"
     way.

       for instance typing     ftp    ftp.univ-rennes1.fr

     query the DNS for an entry  "ftp.univ-rennes1.fr" gets an IP 
     address and add PORT xxx for FTP.


|    
|    
|    Of course there might be good reasons to store machine entries
|    in the directory. Some applications (say a distributed management
See above.
|    servie) may have interest in the machine themselves.
|    But that a completely different usage. The machine entry
Yes
|    will inded be a machine entry distinct from the server entries
|    
|    
|    regards,
|    
|    
|    -- PAP
|    
|    
|    > 
|    > 
|    > 
|    > 
|    
|    
|    
|    
|    


Jean-Paul Le Guigner - CRU [CRI Univ. Rennes I] 99 84 71 50