Re: Soft-Switch and X.500--Zisman Quoted

[Steve Kille <[e-mail]>]

Skip,

I don't find this annoying.  Softswitch is a pragmatic company, and as
Greg Loux commented, this position is reflecting the majority of the
market (certainly as I see it).  There is a clear and strong overall
commitment to X.500 by most large organisations.  However, the same
organisations are up to their eyeballs in directory problems to which
X.500 does not offer short term solutions.

The major area that we must be concerned with is respect of the
installed base.  Those of us promoting X.500 (or any technology)
ignore it at their peril.  We need to focus on transition strategies,
which will enable organisations to effectively migrate from their
current positions to the manageable standardised X.500 environment that
we espouse.

Directory synchronisation is a key, but inherently interim solution.
We need to work with the standardisers of directory synchronisation to
ensure that they provide an evolutionary mechanism towards an X.500
based solution and not proprietary lock-in.

Users want practical solutions, not standardisation religion


Steve Kille,
ISODE Consortium


 >From:  Skip Slone <[e-mail]>
 >To:    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
 >Subject: Soft-Switch and X.500--Zisman Quoted
 >Date:  Tue, 31 Aug 93 12:19:54 MDT

 >Does anyone besides me find this kind of press a bit annoying?
 >
 >> 
 >> Mike Zisman, President of Soft-Switch, Inc., was interviewed in the August 
 >> 30th issue of Communications Week, page 19:
 >> 
 >> Comm Week:  Why don't you support the X.500 directory services standard?
 >> 
 >> Zisman:     Directory synchronization is a first step toward the migration
 >>             to X.500.  We are clearly committed to X.500 in the EMX switch.
 >>             If we delivered X.500 today, none of our customers could use it
 >>             because there's nothing else out there that uses X.500.
 >> 
 >
 >
 >
 >