mdc@planet.bt.co.uk (Martin Chapman) (02/12/90)
Here is an edited compilation of the replies from the following question.
Does anyone *REALLY* understand X.500 ?
>Lampson doesn't fully understand X.500; he's tried to avoid having
>to..I heard him admit this at a meeting after I attempted to get *anyone*
>there to explain what X.500 names look like. The syntax was really
>bizarre.
I guess I'm in good company !
>Why don't you just get a copy of some X.500 software and see for yourself
>what X.500 is about. Get a copy of the ISODE (ask Bug-ISODE@NISC.NYSER.NET
>for the details).
Although this is a good idea, the main problem is that I will gain insight
into how the implementors interpreted the standard, which is slightly
different.
>There are probably one or two people in the world who have a reasonable
>understanding of X.500.
>If this statement is really true, X.500 is in big trouble!
I'm keeping my mouth shut.
-------------
Thanks for the replies, it does seem that I'm not alone out there.
I'm going to have yet another read of the standard. Fortunately I am only
looking from an academic viewpoint, so do not have to do any implementation;
the best of British (luck) to all those that do.
--
Martin Chapman PhD, BSc, SMBCS, B/Tec, GCE, CSE, 11+
British Telecom Research Labs, Martlesham Heath, Suffolk, U.K.
"Life's a Bitch, then you die."joey@geac.com (Joey DeWiele) (02/14/90)
In article <1990Feb12.140956.27362@planet.bt.co.uk> mdc@planet.bt.co.uk (Martin Chapman) writes: > >Here is an edited compilation of the replies from the following question. > > Does anyone *REALLY* understand X.500 ? > ... a bunch of stuff deleted ... > >>There are probably one or two people in the world who have a reasonable >>understanding of X.500. > >>If this statement is really true, X.500 is in big trouble! > Come on now guys, X.500 isn't really *that* complicated !!! While we don't claim to understand the whole standard from page 1 to page 225 (CCITT blue book), our company has been developing an X.500 based Directory to support bibliographic search and retrieval in the Library community. Understanding X.500 was made easier for us because we experimented with simple distributed Library prototypes specified using the X.407 ASDC and implemented using ISODE. If your problems with X.500 stem from a lack of understanding, or confusion, as to how a real protocol (.i.e. exchange of bytes on a wire) can be derived from the abstract services specified in X.511, than I would suggest you play around with ISODE's rosy. Specify some simple abstract services and than use rosy to compile the ROSE operations. This gives you a 'feeling' for the ASDC wich might help your understanding of X.500. In any case, it is my belief that the biggest problem with understanding X.500 is the lack of people you can "call up" and ask questions. Simple things that could be resolved in seconds remain irritating thorns just because X.500 experience is not widespread. I believe that a couple of years will see this experience distributed far more widely, and that this will greatly ease the burden of individuals trying to apprend X.500 all by themselves. Joey
S.Kille@CS.UCL.AC.UK (Steve Kille) (02/16/90)
>From: Martin Chapman <mcsun!ukc!axion!planet!mdc@net.uu.uunet> >Subject: X.500 Nonsense: Summary >Date: 12 Feb 90 14:09:56 GMT >>There are probably one or two people in the world who have a reasonable >>understanding of X.500. Looks like I needed to be a bit clearer, as my sarcasm clearly went over some heads! Also this line is being quoted out of context - at the same time I pointed out two people very close to you who have a pretty good idea about X.500. X.500 does take quite a bit of effort to get to grips with. However, a lot of people have done so, and there are plenty of implementations. Steve
atkins@hpindda.HP.COM (Brian Atkins) (02/18/90)
I sent a response to the poster of this basenote, asking if there were any specific questions. Even though I have received no reply, I would like to see this discussion continue. Although I am no expert in X.500, I am currently part of a lab working on OSI applications such as X.500 and X.400. I do understand the X.500 standard (Recommendation) to some extent and learn more about it each day. In addition, I am in the company of persons who know quite a bit about X.500. If there are specific questions or areas if confusion/interest, I would like to see them brought up here. I would be willing to try to answer them or refer them to people who are better qualified. If the spirit of this basenote was to express frustration and seek to understand something about X.500, then let's continue. If it was mearly to slam X.500, then just claiming it is not possible to understand is a poor slam at best (and is more a comment on the reader than the standard). Even though the standard is very formal and stuffed full of syntax junk and definitions, it is possible to understand it and implement it. I see no point in arguing whether it could have been presented in a more readable form or not; it is the way it is. If the goal is to understand it, then you must come to terms with the way it is presented. Brian Atkins atkins@hpindqa.hp.com