Re: X.500 as document repository
Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Wed, 26 February 1992 16:47 UTC
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15278; 26 Feb 92 11:47 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15271; 26 Feb 92 11:46 EST
Received: from glenlivet.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.27089-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 26 Feb 1992 13:25:35 +0000
To: lazear@gateway.mitre.org
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, mcguthry@gateway.mitre.org
Subject: Re: X.500 as document repository
Phone: +44-71-380-7294
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 24 Feb 92 10:43:42 -0500. <9202241543.AA22008@gateway.mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 13:25:32 +0000
Message-ID: <1521.699110732@UK.AC.UCL.CS>
From: Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Technically, I am not sure that storing documents in the directory is wrong. In terms of information modelling, to have the storage of documents aligned is very attractive. There are some difficulties with use of the current X.500 protocols. ROS is effectively an RPC implementation, and many implmentations do just that. For large parameters, this becomes a real problem. Whilst in principle an implementation could "stream" a ROS parameter (e.g., a very large attribute), this is not modelled and is awkward to code because of the way the protocol is specified. It was for this reason that the Internet DSP was modified from the original QUIPU protocol, to use lots of smaller operations rather than one big one. In conclusion, I suggest that storing documents in the DIT may well be sensible, but using X.500 to access them is not. Steve
- X.500 as document repository lazear
- Re: X.500 as document repository Sylvain Langlois
- Re: X.500 as document repository yeongw
- Re: X.500 as document repository Sylvain Langlois
- Re: X.500 as document repository Thomas Johannsen
- Re: X.500 as document repository Steve Hardcastle-Kille