IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)

Tim Howes <tim@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> Tue, 16 November 1993 17:21 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08405; 16 Nov 93 12:21 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08401; 16 Nov 93 12:21 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13622; 16 Nov 93 12:21 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.05034-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 14:35:23 +0000
Received: from terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.28862-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 14:35:14 +0000
Received: from vertigo.rs.itd.umich.edu by terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.4/2.2) with SMTP id JAA01040; Tue, 16 Nov 1993 09:34:48 -0500
Message-Id: <199311161434.JAA01040@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
To: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
cc: Woermann@osi.e3x.fr, steve.kille@isode.com, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Rep (2) : QUIPU vs X.500 (was: A tool for...)
In-reply-to: Your message of "16 Nov 93 11:32:55 +0100." <753445975.24278.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@MHS>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 09:34:47 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tim Howes <tim@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>

> From:    pays@faugeres.inria.fr
> To:      Woermann@OSI.e3x.fr, steve.kille@isode.com

> I don't want to get into a dispute, but then I want that it is stated clearly
> that either
>    the Paradise pilot is a Quipu pilot 
> 	(because the statement that RFC1276 is the only key is FALSE)
>    or it is an X.500 pilot
> 	(then QUIPU should be fixed asap, because it is not suited
> 	as such for what it is been used for)
> so that each one will decide on its own.
> 
> Moreover I don't understand why you oppose so strongly discussing
>    quietly the real interworking problems and just dismiss everything
>    inelegantly. Anyhow the OIFP report will be published in a matter of
>    days now and everyone will be able to technically make his own mind,
>    and then decide what they need (and not what the IC has decided
>    should be the truth!)

Just my two cents.  Steve, you seem to be saying that if implementations
just follow RFC 1276, everything will work together ok.  PAP is saying
that even following 1276 does not do the job.  I have not looked into
it enough to know what all the problems are, but it seems to me that
some problem does exist and that we should be trying to solve it.   -- Tim

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email