mrose@CHEETAH.NYSER.NET (Marshall Rose) (07/04/89)
Hi. By now you may have read the lead article in Communications Week
about "Internet Advances OSI" by Kelly Jackson. Whilst I rather like the
article as a whole, there are two subtle mis-quotes and one bit of
mis-information that I thought I should clear up. I am writing this
"pre-emptively" hoping to avoid a massive flame attack since the two
mis-quotes are mine!
1. The story is about a White Pages pilot project NYSERnet is going to be
running. It is based on the OSI X.500 protocols. The article notes
that
"The Internet currently uses a centralized directory service..."
Please note that this is a reference to WHOIS and **NOT** the DNS.
2. There is a statement about the anticipated size of the pilot and "That
dwarfs the 70,000 entries in the existing Internet directory, most of
which are outdated, said Marshall Rose". I didn't say *most* of the
entries are outdate. Merely that some of them are. That is true of any
white pages service, including the phone book sitting on your desk. It
should also be noted that I am a proponent of WHOIS, as it is a really
useful service that a lot of people still use daily.
3. There is a statement "Whether the White Pages service actually will
replace the Internet directory service depends on the outcome of the
trial, Rose said." I didn't say this. I said "that the success of the
pilot, and whether we would offer it as a production service would be
determined at the end of the trial." That is, at no time did I say
anything about replacing WHOIS, DNS, or anything else. And, just for the
record, the pilot project is specifically avoiding doing DNS-like things
simply because I do not believe Directory technology to be currently
competitive to the DNS in this regard. Some of the more pure-OSI'ists,
may disagree with me. The focus of the pilot project is more on human
information.
Please understand that from a non-technical perspective, you can see how
what I said got subtly changed into print. I really can't fault the
article's author for this, though it is somewhat unfortunate.
Anyway, before I get thoroughly hosed/flamed/nuked/whatever, I thought
I'd better come clean. More denials later, as the need arises (-:
/mtr
ps: If you want more information on the white pages pilot, let me know,
privately (to cut down on netmail). I can send you a postscript files
containing a little white paper on it.mcc@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Merton Campbell Crockett) (07/04/89)
Marshall: Shoot! I'm confused! I thought it was just last year that you suggested that one shouldn't talk to the press as they have a tendency to use "editorial license" to create a smoothly flowing article--accuracy not being an essential element of the "smoothing function". Of course, one shouldn't be surprised by such actions. DoD runs a six (6) month course for Program and Proposal Managers which produces the same results as a four (4) year degree in Journalism. I still wonder why they grant a Bachelor of Arts rather than a Bachelor of Science for Journalism--the latter seems so much more appropriate and accurate. Merton
mrose@cheetah.nyser.net (Marshall Rose) (07/04/89)
Well, maybe you are confused! (-: I can't recall ever saying "don't talk to the press." I thought I said "be careful". /mtr