Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses
Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr> Wed, 26 May 1993 08:58 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01076; 26 May 93 4:58 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01072; 26 May 93 4:58 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03057; 26 May 93 4:58 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.01782-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 26 May 1993 09:29:03 +0100
Received: from mitsou.inria.fr by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.00409-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 26 May 1993 09:28:51 +0100
Received: by mitsou.inria.fr (5.65c/IDA-1.2.8) id AA18017; Wed, 26 May 1993 10:29:09 +0200
Message-Id: <199305260829.AA18017@mitsou.inria.fr>
To: Jean-Paul Le Guigner <Jean-Paul.Le-Guigner@univ-rennes1.fr>
Cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses
In-Reply-To: Your message of "26 May 93 09:34:56 +0200." <199305260734.AA16316(l)a(r)mailimailo.univ-rennes1.fr>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 10:29:06 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr>
Folks, Both the LDAP and the "PresentationAddress" debate indicate how buggy X.500 is: 1) The LDAP debate showed that some implementations are perfectly conformant, yet don't do what the user want. Behind that lies a hard fact: we dont know how to distribute "searches" -- that is, in general. Distributing them along a hierarchy almost work, provided the hierarchy is not "too branchy". Top levels are traditionally very very branchy... 2) The PSAP debate showed that people are naturally reluctant to duplicate their "machine addresses" in all their "application" entries. Indeed, that is the first rule of data base management -- never duplicate information, less you end up with inconsistant updates. In a relational SGBD, the "application" tuple would have a "support system identifier" entry, and inherit the NSAP address from this entry. The X.500 schema, from that point of view, is very naive. Maybe we should start defining our own X.500 dialect, adding whatever features are required. In the short term, it may mean that "top level" DSAs should perform massive replications -- i.e. collect the full description of all the member organizations -- following the model of "data base servers" rather than that of "DNS servers". The single reservation I have with this model is that the more "service" we place in the top level servers, the less we can justify a monopoly, and the more we need to go away from the hierarchical organization of servers. Christian Huitema
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Edwards Reed
- Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Peter Yee
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Peter Yee
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Thomas Johannsen
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses James W. Hong
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Steve Kille
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses C.B.Stathopoulos
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses James W. Hong
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses C.B.Stathopoulos
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses C.B.Stathopoulos
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Peter Furniss
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Peter Yee
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses pays
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Jean-Paul Le Guigner
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Christian Huitema
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Colin Robbins
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Christian Huitema
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses Peter Yee
- Re: Using X.500 to determine presentationAddresses C.B.Stathopoulos