Thanks Peter for your encouragement -- See below...
Extracted from Peter Williams message
<9302222211(_dot_)AA01184(_at_)TIS(_dot_)COM> :
...
}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.
So, to continue...
I agree entirely with Peter Yee's points about PEM alignment with SD-5.
I made this very argument at the PEM WG meeting in Boston, and was
told by Robert Shirey ("a rather stern slap") that I should read the
PEM documents before I make any comments. He has reminded me of this
in public on several occasions, along with others in the PEM WG.
My claim is that PEM WG participants should read SD-5 and find a way
to align with it, whether I read their bloody documents or not.
I entirely fail to see what my reading their documents has to do with
a suggestion that they read and align with some document they are
ignoring. I can easily tell that they are ignoring SD-5 without
reading their bloody documents, and that is what this is all about.
As Marshall and I have pointed out, X.500 is primarily designed for
"listing" entries, and SD-5 clearly points this out. I think SD-5
states the case very well.
People who disagree with SD-5 are ignoring its logic, at their peril.
I will agree that on occasion, the X-500 DIT might incidentally do
double duty as a listing and registration service (ala DNS), but even
then, the right to use any given name must be subject to civil naming
authority legalities, as appropriate in each sovereign nation.
PEM and friends appear to want to establish a new (different) global
name registration system in parallel with the existing national civil
naming infrastructures.
Legally, this simply cannot be arranged. The courts in every country
will eventually resolve any dispute no matter who makes claims to the
contrary. SD-5 embodies this principle.
Also, this is why I wrote the A=IMX ID <draft-ietf-x400ops-admd-01.txt>
to say that the IANA will simply record whatever it is instructed to
record by whatever authority controls the use of any given registered
name. No challenge periods, et al.
So, who owns the problem of resolving this PEM civil/non-civil naming
disagreement.
Well, neither PEM nor X.500 can subvert the law of the land in any
sovereign nation, so X.500 and PEM had best get into alignment with
the civil naming authorities, (else PEM and X.500 will kill X.500;-).
It cannot be that X.500 will be killed by alignment with the existing
Civil Naming Infrastructure. The real truth is:
"X.500 cannot successfully operate outside of it."
So, PEM and X.500 developers/users own the problem of alignment with
the civil naming infrastructure, ala SD-5.
(It is certainly not the other way around;-).
Enjoy! With this missive, I leave you to choose your lots.
Please feel free to ignore me, again, at your peril. (None of my
clients are supporting me to help save you, so you are on your own;-).
Cheers...\Stef