Re: re : X.500 -Reply
Sylvain Langlois <Sylvain.Langlois@der.edf.fr> Tue, 26 September 1995 15:58 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11379; 26 Sep 95 11:58 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11375; 26 Sep 95 11:58 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13372; 26 Sep 95 11:58 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.05793-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:38:46 +0100
Received: from chenas.inria.fr by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.20781-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:38:20 +0100
Received: from edf.edf.fr by chenas.inria.fr (5.65c8d/92.02.29) via EUnet-France id AA06462; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:35:33 +0100 (MET)
Received: from cli51aa (cli51aa.der.edf.fr) by edf.edf.fr with SMTP id AA18764 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4); Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:33:09 +0100
Received: from cli51bm (cli51bm.der.edf.fr) by cli51aa (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA12144; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:35:09 +0100
To: Chris Weider <clw@bunyip.com>
Cc: Ed_Reed@novell.com, maciag@server1.deltanet.com, pays@gctech.edelweb.fr, DaveHU@novell.com, Jeff_Hawkins@novell.com, Lenley_Hensarling@novell.com, THasan@novell.com, Therron_Powell@novell.com, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: re : X.500 -Reply
In-Reply-To: Chris Weider's message of Mon, 25 Sep 1995 14:36:46 -0400. <199509251836.OAA01980@kosh.bunyip.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Id: <10503.812133751.1@cli51bm>
Content-Md5: F/UPPpZAr0twb6SkVqk+mQ==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:42:31 +0000
Message-Id: <10505.812133751@cli51bm>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Sylvain Langlois <Sylvain.Langlois@der.edf.fr>
> First, it is entirely possible that in some *very limited* aspects, WHOIS++ > will look more and more like X.500 (88). Hmmm, I would understand that one would rather target a 93 version of X.500. I've been playing with products implementing some of the 93 features and some of them solved problems I had when using the 88 version (not talking about the products themselves but about the protocol(s) functions which are new in 93). I would not dare setting a 93 DSA for real operations (for production, I mean), products are still a bit young but *in theory*, there are some functionnal holes in 88 which are covered by 93. As such, I think the limited aspects you talk about should take this into account. Beware I heard many people talking about X.500(96) :-) :-) Sylvain ---------------- Sylvain Langlois (Sylvain.Langlois@der.edf.fr)
- re : X.500 -Reply Ed Reed
- Re: re : X.500 -Reply Sylvain Langlois
- Re: re : X.500 -Reply Chris Weider
- Re: re : X.500 -Reply Chris Weider