Re: PEM Test Service

[Einar Stefferud <Stef=[e-mail]>]

Hello Robert, et al ...  I tire of your condescending discussion.

It is really hard to avoid responding in kind.  However, since there
seems to be a long standing pattern of this kind of abuse in the PEM
WG, I will respond to set the record straight from my perspective.

In Boston I sat in the back of the room, and I freely admitted that I
had not read the documents under discussion, and I did not participate
in the discussion until the question of DN handling came up.  Then I
only proposed that you should look at the NADF naming document for
information that would be helpful to anyone trying to deal with DN
handling in the context of c=us.  You and the WG reacted rather badly.

I only spoke up at that point because it was clear from the discussion
that no one in the PEM WG had digested the NADF naming document, and
that it would be helpful if they did.  I figured that if the whole WG
is groping for an answer, and if I can help end the grope by accident
of being in the room at the right time, then I should offer to help.

I respect the concept of expecting participants to have done their
homework, but I also respect that concept that outsiders are sometimes
able to provide useful suggestions and make useful proposals.

You summarily shut me down.  Fine by me.  You are full grown and all
haired over, so you are free to do things as you may wish.

So, I left it at that, figuring that sooner or later you might awaken
to realize that there was something you may have missed along the way.

Regrettably, someone also awakened me and encouraged me to return to
the fray.  So much for the sleep of innocence...

So, now that we have both awakened, I will say:

"Good Morning!"
"Have you read NADF 175 yet?"  
"Did you understand it?"  

Your message suggests you have not read it or do not understand it.

NADF 175, as cited in your document, is an early version of what has
become NADF SD-5.  NADF 175 contains the basic concepts in any case.
Later versions refined it and restructured it to make it international
instead of c=us specific.

Of course, you should get yourself the latest version to read now!

I can see from the extracted text you sent in your last message that
the PEM WG has not yet understood what the NADF naming document is
trying to convey.  I might assume the WG has not read the document.

Unfortunately, I am no longer participating in NADF (since April '92),
and I do not have ready access to information on how to access the
latest SD-5 version.  Someone in PEM-DEV surely has the access
information.  Marshall Rose recently put the whole set of NADF SD's
out on the net for FTP Anon.  Perhaps he can tell you how to get them?

I do see RFC1417 contains an overview of the NADF Standing documents:
02/03 14:21PST "Joyce K. Reynold RFC1417 on NADF Standing Documents.
Perhaps it will tell you how to get a copy of SD-5.

After you have read SD-5, you should ask questions of the current NADF
participants (of which I am not one) to get answers and clarify your
understanding of how the NADF Naming Scheme uses normal, already in
place, c=us civil infrastructure names to form DN values for X.500.

As things turn out, virtually any person anywhere in c=us already has
a way to get a good serviceable DN without any further action to
register somewhere else.  This is true for organizational persons and
residential persons.  This arises out of recognition of the difference
between name registration (which is what the civil infrastructure
does), and entry listing, which is what X.500 does.

I am not going to further enlighten you, beyond saying that it will be
very wise for you to read and understand SD-5, and align PEM with it.
There are many subtle concepts involved, and you need to read it
straight from SD-5 to get them straight.  My lectures will not help.

BTW, if I must read and understand all your documents in order to get
you to take my advice in this matter, then you should proceed at your
peril without taking my advice.

It is your problem to align PEM with SD-5, if you want to, not mine.

Cheers...\Stef