Re: Directory Services Work coordination proposal

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 13 November 1993 00:35 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15494; 12 Nov 93 19:35 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15490; 12 Nov 93 19:35 EST
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27405; 12 Nov 93 19:35 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.09605-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Sat, 13 Nov 1993 00:13:05 +0000
Received: from necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.14521-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Sat, 13 Nov 1993 00:12:47 +0000
Received: by necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (5.65+/necom-mx-rg); Sat, 13 Nov 93 09:07:24 +0900
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <9311130007.AA26234@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: Directory Services Work coordination proposal
To: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 9:07:18 JST
Cc: leiner@nsipo.nasa.gov, Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, ietf-wnils@ucdavis.edu, apples@surfnet.nl
In-Reply-To: <9311122352.AA11047@tipper.oit.unc.edu>; from "Simon E Spero" at Nov 12, 93 6:52 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

> I think there have been two major philosphical breakthroughs that make
> me much more hopeful for the future of a globally useful white pages 
> service. 

I think white page is a, so called, database.

> The first breakthrough is the death of the universal namespace; like 
> Russel's universal set, there is no one directory name space that can be
> used for general purpose searching. An arbritrary namespace can be created
> to optimise simple directory lookups, but assigning deeper meaning to the
> name is an exercise in futility. 

What's wrong with a relational database? Isn't it universal enough?

>   Another technique is allowing each directory server to be a member of 
> multiple hierachies. The examples used in the whois++ index architecture
> document were "topological", "geographical", and "administrative".

Those are important access methods. But if you are proposing to provide
indeces to several would-be-important hierarchies only and prohibiting
global search, I don't think it good database.

						Masataka Ohta