Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)
Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com> Wed, 17 November 1993 03:39 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19719;
16 Nov 93 22:39 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19715;
16 Nov 93 22:39 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00354;
16 Nov 93 22:39 EST
Received: from glengoyne.isode.com by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
id <g.01733-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 08:08:42 +0000
To: Ascan Woermann (Tel +33 93-65-34-65) <Woermann@osi.e3x.fr>
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, pays@faugeres.inria.fr
Subject: Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)
Phone: +44-81-332-9091
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 15 Nov 1993 21:26:25 +0000.
<75339878516420woer*/S=Woermann/OU=OSI/O=E3X/PRMD=E3X/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/@MHS>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 08:02:31 +0000
Message-ID: <1523.753436951@glengoyne.isode.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
Forget the glib comments and details of interoperability and lets remember one basic fact. Pure X.500(88) cannot be deployed on a large scale. Period. Extensions to support replication are needed. RFC 1276 is the only viable published pre-93 mechanism. Any operational pilot needs to agree its replication mechanisms for the upper levels of the DIT. Your X.500 pedantry is simply a diversion from this basic reality. Steve
- Rep (4) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Ascan Woermann
- Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...) Steve Kille