Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses

[Thomas Johannsen <[e-mail]>]

Somehow the following mail didn't want to leave my queue to osi-ds... :-(

	From thomas Mon May 17 11:01:17 1993
	To: [e-mail]
	Subject: Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses
	Cc: [e-mail]
	Status: R
	
	Hi Costas,
	
	It's been a long time since our last e-mail contact...
	
		Bearing in mind the "Charting Networks in the Directory" 
		(OSI-DS-37) draft document I thought that maybe a refinement 
		of the mechenism described there could be used for globally 
		naming network elements within the Directory.
		Of course the above naming schema results in machine names 
		that are far away from user-friendly.  
		
		As Steve writes:
		>The decisions on naming machines should be primarily dictated by
		> 1) Reasonable names for the machines
		> 2) A naming structure which permits effective allocation.
		>I would expect that some key services would be named at the ARC level,
		>and the majority of machines at the departmental or project level
		>(i.e., org units within ARC).  
		
		I agree with these two points.
		But for 2) I was expecting something related to the OSI-DS-37 idea.
		What about the "nodes" mentioned there? Are we going to have finally
		two places for registering machines (one under the OU level 
		and the other under the network level)? Don't you think that all kinds 
		of information about a machine must be gathered in one place? 
	
	I would see the two possibilities as ways to FIND a node object.
	It should be stored (managed etc.) only once though. Say, you
	actually hold all nodes of your org in a separate network subtree
	and use aliases to point from o/ou levels towards them (if you feel
	the need for this reference). 
	
	Although nobody will prevent you from putting ALL nodes of
	(several) networks owned by your org into ONE flat subtree (i.e.
	on one level) I'd strongly encourage building network trees in the
	DIT which will give the relationship between nodes and subnetworks. You
	might find this useful for routing, naming, etc.
		
		I am looking forward to seeing opinions on the above.
		
		Regards,
		Costas. 
		
	Thomas