Steve Kille has shown the same propensity to look at all this the same
way you do. You should get together with him to see if he still
agrees with that view.
I wish you lots of luck arranging for X.500 registries to reregister
all names to be used in X.500. It only took 5 years to get the ANSI
Organizational Name Register for names under C=US to function, at
$2500.00 per registered name. Nothing has been done about
registration within the states and other localities, except to
recognize FIPS 55 as the official locality register in support of the
NADF Naming Scheme's use of the civil naming infrastructure.
So, you can use the NADF Scheme, or you can hold out waiting for ANSI
to do something else, perhaps of the sort that you suggest. Are you
prepared to make a contribution to the ANSI USA-RAC proposing
something? The next USA-RAC meeting is in September, 2 weeks after
the September OIW meeting.
Of course families don't "register" names in the same way that the
County Clerk does, but the family decides what name is to be bound
within the family surname, adn the clerk records the facts. And, not
so long ago, the actual register was written into the family bible.
You are simply confusing the X.500 listing of an otherwise already
registered name with its otherwise registration. Nothing in the X.500
specs defines the X.500 DIT as being a register.
Yes, it is possible, as in the case of the DNS, for a register and a
corresponding listing to be one and the same, which in the DNS
instance is really very useful, but X.500 is not defined that way.
If you are trying to make X.500 behave as DNS does, to be a
simultaneous Register and Listing service with one entry doing the
duty of both services, you will have to work to extend some of the
X.500 standards.
X.500 is the first, and perhaps the last, technology to insist that
the owner of a listing entry bring their own unique location address
(DN), based on registration in some other (civil) registration
authority.
Cheers...\Stef
From TCJones(_at_)dockmaster(_dot_)ncsc(_dot_)mil message Wed, 18 Aug 93 20:52
EDT:
}
}If there is to be ANY registration of DN's it will be in X.500
}directories (or possibly CA's). There simply is NO OTHER PLACE to
}register them. This constant effort to re-define perfect good English
}words to suit the speaker's concepts is really disconcerting and, I
}would posit, counterproductive. It is exactly the same problem we are
}having with the word distinguished in DN. If I can DISTINGUISH between
}two ways that my interchange partners will communicate with me, then I
}will seek to REGISTER DN's for both of them with a CA or directory.
}
}Peace ..Tom Jones