home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
- From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
- Subject: Re: OSI == second system syndrome
- Message-ID: <id.ZIRS.GD@ferranti.com>
- Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
- References: <1992Aug26.154940.14823@sequent.com> <BtMtov.9xK@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:21:03 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <BtMtov.9xK@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:
- > sch@sequent.com (Steve Hemminger) writes:
- > >* User friendly. Exchanging X.400 mail addresses is not friendly.
- > > Having to have full information about every other machine you want to
- > > talk to is not friendly (i.e Network, Transport, Session, Application
- > > ...)
-
- > This is solved by OSI with the X.500 directory services in a very elegant
- > way.
-
- Only if you have cheap real-time access to the database. X.400 and X.500 is
- a solution for rich folks or service bureaus. It doesn't scale well to low
- bandwidth loosely-coupled systems.
-
- As X.400 gets more common, I'm getting more and more bounces. Worse, I'm
- getting bounces from replies to messages originated in X.400 land, where
- the gateway didn't put an unambiguous address in the sender field. Because
- there is no such thing as an unambiguous address in X.400.
-
- > -A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't-
- > -even know existed can render your own computer unusable. (Leslie Lamport)-
-
- Well, that's why a loosely coupled system is useful, and the basic problem
- with X.500.
- --
- Peter da Silva `-_-'
- $ EDIT/TECO LOVE 'U`
- %TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war? Have you hugged your wolf today?
- Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp. Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012 +1 713 274 5180
-