Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ALBNYVM1.BITNET!BEC
From: BEC@ALBNYVM1.BITNET (Ben Chi)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
Subject: Re: How Serious are we about running quipu?
Message-ID: <900411.124304.EDT.BEC@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Date: 11 Apr 90 16:43:04 GMT
References: <1990Apr11.025837.6749@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: University at Albany Computing Services
Lines: 18

On Wed, 11 Apr 90 13:58:39 +0100 John McQueen said (regarding the X.500
pilot):
>. . .
>My personal thoughts are that if we are going to do this then me may
>as well do it properly, and each organization make some sort of
>commitment in money/manpower to maintaining an uptodate complete
>directory. . .

I couldn't agree more strongly.  The whole point of a >distributed<
directory is so that the contributors of the various pieces could
keep those pieces up to date.  If this is not done, the whole project
will ultimately fail, just as have a number of other attempts at
"wide-area" directories, most of which were not nearly as well-con-
ceived.

We generate an entirely new EDB directly from the University's
Personnel Database every month.  I'd be interested what the practice
other DSA managers in this connection.