>From: Peter Yee <yee(_at_)gov(_dot_)nasa(_dot_)arc(_dot_)atlas>
>Subject: Re: PEM Test Service
>Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 11:57:31 -0800
>>The less obvious thing is that once you have done this, you don't need
X.500.
>>More precisely, as you derive the name and its uniqueness from an external
>>source, you have a right to use it which is absolutely independant of its
>>registration in one or another X.500 DN hierarchy.
>
>I agree here, although my argument is along the lines, that as long as you
>are going to use X.500, you should attempt to make it work well. NADF 175
>(which Marshall Rose tells me is called SD 5 now) does not solve all the
>problems that might exist in X.500. It does try to solve some of them,
within
>the constraints of X.500.
>
>>Another consequence is that, as X.500 imports the hierarchical structure
from
>>the "real world", it also imports a drastic constraint on how the X.500
>>infrastructure can be layered -- essentially loosing all possible degrees
of
>>liberty. To put it shortly, using the same token as "your legal name" and
"the
>>database key" does not help building the data base. Failure to separate
these
>>two is probably a fatal flaw that is going to doom the X.500 effort.
>
>It loses some liberty. X.500 was hierarchical to start with. I don't
believe
>that X.500 will necessarily die from its less flexible naming scheme,
although
>I wouldn't say it is the best.
>
>>Don't misundersand me. I am NOT saying that PEM should not use "legal
>>looking" names. Just that the linkage with X.500 will probably have to be
cut
>>some day.
>
>If and when there is replacement for X.500 services for PEM, we can talk
about
>it. In the meantime, let's make use of X.500. I merely wish to head off
>problems that occur should DNs be assigned without regard to name clashes
(and
>in the context of X.500).
> -Peter
Given PEM services are now to be deployed on a large scale - as we WILL
start to do in March, come what may - then it must be on the basis of the
accumulated experience of practical naming in the X.500 Directory
Services now in operation. The underlying naming policy was debated,
proposal-standardized, and founded upon the sense of SD 6 for the USA
(Canada and US of Mexico??).
Now Stef received a rather stern slap from various members of this WG ;
he did predict however back in Boston that this conflict would
eventually arise. It did seem that even limiting the debate to the
practical naming issues of now, vs yet more theory of naming, the
praxis of massive DN registration was being brushed under the carpet by PEM-WG.
We ought to encourage him to bring his experience on this back to bear,
if my first statement is not consensual.