Rep (2) : Comments from C Huitema ...

[Alain Zahm <[e-mail]>]

> 
> There are 2 aspects
> 
> 1. I don't see any feature of X.500 that would enable, according
> to the requestor identity, to select automaticaly and transparently
> 
> either the authoritative ot the non-authoritative information
>   [[that could be an improvement of X.500 to allow for attributes
> 	to have different tagged values, some being tagged as
> 	being authoritative and other non-authoritative.
> 	But this is a different story :-( ]]
> 
> 
> 2. I think it is useful to have the possibility to explicitely select
> which one is needed for a specific application
>   . applications (eg. payroll or other) will allways use the authoritative
> 	subtree. The only one for which some administration/operator
> 	would bring the responsiblity for the contained information
>   . interactive-users may select explicitely what they want
>   . the subtree official manager will (as explained in my 1rst posting)
> 	periodically run an application which would after any desirable
> 	control update the authoritative subtree using the
> 	non-authoritative one (at disposal of the end-users for
> 	modifying their own non-protected data such as fax-number
> 	email aso)
> 

an alternative would be to consider that, as modifications are allowd on
the original, that the authoritative dats represent a cache (i.e. copy) of
the non authoritative datas. Then by specifying the explicit use of a copy
or not, access would be offered through one or another database. Of course
the copy should be always the default, thus the authoritative one. But this
eems to be a good model of what tou want?

Regards

Alain Zahm