NADF and other pilots [ was Re: UK Academic...]

["Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <[e-mail]>]

Stef,

You got me worried, you said:

==> From: Einar Stefferud

> It was not an easy discussion and we did not resolve much, except to
> (more or less) note that the NADF pilot and the White Pages Pilot
> (including the Internet Pilot) will need to be kept separate without
> any interworking, at least in the beginning.
> 
> To some extent this is due to naming scheme differences between the
> two piloting communities.
> 
> So, it does look like we are indeed just experimenting in different
> ways, and are not really beginning to set up the real directory future
> of the world.
> 
> Of course, we need to be "pretending to be setting up the future" in
> order to run realistic pilots, but we should not forget that we are
> only pretending.  We must keep in mind that the "Pretender to the
> Throne" is not yet the Queen".

As I am a very firm believer in the "The only viable directory service is the
global directory service" this worries me very much. I do realise that what
you say in the last paragraph is true, and therefore in nl i'm working hard
to involve the Dutch PTT and Ministry of Transport and communications as much
as possible to avoid having to start all over again in a couple of years or
(even worse) to get two separate (and unconnected) directory services.

It therefore worries me that the NADF has chosen to keep it's pilot separate
from the internet/paradise/WPP. This does not make things easier for (e.g.)
non--north-american government-officials to decide on what is right and wrong
with X.500 DS if there are two major unconnected pilots. Furthermore you are
vague about the reasosn for keeping the two separate, and I think that's
wrong. If the NADF, in which reside people like you for whom I have a high
regard, decide that something is so wrong in the current pilots, that
interconn4ection is out of the question, then these things shouldbe brought
forward in a clear way, so we can discuss and resolve them (that's what a
PILOT is all about).

Steve's remark that he sees flaws in the NADF-175 document also get's me
worried, as I get the eery feeling we start to diverge instead of converge.
As far as I can see there's only one thing wrong with the NADF document, and
that is that it is only applicable for NA, and that we will have a --- of
time in getting something like that in place for NL, let alone the whole of
Europe (NA is only 2.5 countries, Europe is well over 25 and still
increasing), or the whole world.

I know it is probably not realistic to want to catch the whole naming
strucvture of this globe (what do wer do when we discover other civilisations
on other globes? Create an entry above the root :-) in one document, but we
have to fight hard for a global DS, that is not achieved by separate pilots
with different approaches, be it in naming or otherwise. 

In short (I do not want to break Wengyik's record) Stef (or Marshall) could
you elaborate a bit on the arguments for not joining the pilots, and on your
views of what is wrong with the current pilots?

I'd appreciate it,

Erik