Re: NADF and other pilots [ was Re: UK Academic...]
Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr> Mon, 17 February 1992 09:50 UTC
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19870; 17 Feb 92 4:50 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19866; 17 Feb 92 4:50 EST
Received: from mitsou.inria.fr by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.18120-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Mon, 17 Feb 1992 08:50:49 +0000
Received: from localhost by mitsou.inria.fr with SMTP (5.65c/IDA-1.2.8) id AA10780; Mon, 17 Feb 1992 09:51:42 +0100
Message-Id: <199202170851.AA10780@mitsou.inria.fr>
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Cc: yeongw@psi.com
Subject: Re: NADF and other pilots [ was Re: UK Academic...]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "14 Feb 92 18:00:00 EST." <9202142300.AA01055@spartacus.psi.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 09:51:40 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr>
X-Mts: smtp
> The NADF and the Internet also differ in that for the most > part (again, excluding France, sorry don't mean to pick on > the French), the Internet manages knowledge (DSA entries) > using the Directory itself, whereas the NADF manages Directory > knowledge by means outside of the Directory. > In fact, the French pilots do manage knowledge using the Directory itself. The simple difference here with the Quipu pilots is that they dont use the same attributes, and they dont store them at the same place: knowledge information is entirely contained within the DSA entries, not within the "non-leaf" entries. This is for historical reasons -- Pizarro was designed before Quipu was released. Also the scheme is easier to administer: you have to replicate the DSA entries in all cases; by inserting the knowledge in this entry, you avoid the need for replicating the "non leaf" itself. To come back to Erik's first question on "how many pilots", I would underline the very big difference between the "listing" and "registration" model. The registration model, currently in use within the DNS and the quipu pilots, mostly say that you need one "master" per entry, and that you cannot create a subordinate name (e.g. an org within a city) without registering explicitely the subordinate entry within the "master" DSA (e.g. the DSA run by the town hall for the city). The listing model, advocated by the NADF pilot, observe that you cannot accept to have only one master for objects like "countries", "regions" or "cities". Governments and town halls dont seem very much interested in providing the service, and are in fact forbidden to do it by "anti-monopolistic" laws in some countries. The same anti-monopolistic laws would in fact forbid any company to assert a nation-wide monopoly on the naming service; thus, several companies will "compete" to provide "naming information" to various classes of "customers". Mix it with privacy laws, trade mark laws and a grain of European regulations, and you obtain a model where: * organisations get a name by some magic -- i.e. using a registration system external to the directory. NADF proposes using the "civil registries", i.e. the formal registration of orgs for "civil" purposes. One could imagine that other registration systems like the Internet DNS or the various name allocation systems provided by standard organizations could be used as well. * the organisation can run its internal directory using X.500. * it will also request to "be listed" in various servers. If you want to know something on the organisation, you will have to go to one of these servers, which all have their own "view of the world". You will probably be given back some informations + perhaps the address of the organisation's DSA, and will be able to navigate towards the destination. Indeed, this is different from the original "strict hierarchy" model of X.500. At the top, we dont have a tree anymore, but a graph. Graphs and tree dont mix well, which explain the NADF "isolation" from the quipu pilots. And it is not at all clear that the X.500 navigation concepts remain adequate! Christian Huitema
- UK Academic Community Code of Conduct Steve Hardcastle-Kille
- Re: UK Academic Community Code of Conduct John Lowry
- Re: UK Academic Community Code of Conduct George Michaelson
- Re: UK Academic Community Code of Conduct Christian Huitema
- Re: UK Academic Community Code of Conduct Einar Stefferud
- NADF and other pilots [ was Re: UK Academic...] Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)
- Re: NADF and other pilots [ was Re: UK Academic..… yeongw
- Re: NADF and other pilots [ was Re: UK Academic..… Christian Huitema
- UCL Telex number - "40" or "54" in NSAP Christian Huitema
- Re: UCL Telex number - "40" or "54" in NSAP Colin Robbins
- Re: UCL Telex number - "40" or "54" in NSAP "/I=A/S=Macpherson/OU=HAL0200/O=STC Technology Ltd/PRMD=STC Plc/"
- Re: UCL Telex number - "40" or "54" in NSAP Christian Huitema
- Re: UCL Telex number - "40" or "54" in NSAP Steve Hardcastle-Kille