joey@geaclib.UUCP (Joey De Wiele) (01/11/89)
ROSE Operations Another question for all you ISO experts out there. In examining the ROSE services closely, in conjunction with the Directory services, it seems to me that aspects of the Directory Service would be better transferred to the ROSE service element. Some examples are: The Abandon Operation (X.500) It would appear to be generally useful for a ROSE-user to be able to 'abandon' an operation in progress, for a variety of conceivable reasons, within many different applications. Why not include an abandon service in ROSE? It would be the RO-ABANDON service. Service Problems (X.500) The service problems defined in X.500 include: - busy - unavailable - unwillingToPerform These seem quite reasonable to include with the RO-REJECT-U service.
kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) (01/17/89)
/ hpindda:comp.protocols.iso / joey@geaclib.UUCP (Joey De Wiele) / 11:59 am Jan 10, 1989 / > In examining the ROSE services closely, in conjunction with the > Directory services, it seems to me that aspects of the Directory Service > would be better transferred to the ROSE service element. Some examples > are: yeah, but I think the idea of the current division was to allow ROSE to be a generic Remote Operations ASE, usable in many different SPPs (not just Directory). As such, an effort to keep ROSE as simple and stupid as possible was probably made at the time... (anyone know how the other ROSE-users would like a RO-ABANDON service? MHS-folks?) kevguy ps: no one said ROSE was perfect, but at least it's somewhat stable! ;-)