Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: tinkelman@camb.COM (Bob Tinkelman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: X.500 name-space question
Message-ID: <1991Jan6.125643.39433@camb.com>
Date: 7 Jan 91 05:33:28 GMT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Lines: 27
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to comp.protocols.iso.x400
x-attn: jns
ReSent-From: mhsnews-request@ICS.UCI.EDU
ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU

[Moderator: Please ignore this if it appears to be a duplicate.  I tried to
post an item earlier today, but think that it failed to get sent.  Also, if
there's a better place for me to post this question, please let me know.]

I have a fairly naive question regarding setting up an X.500 name space.
I am working with an international organization that it trying to do the
``right thing'' -- design their X.500 name space before the various parts
of the organization start going their own ways with independent
implementations.

Their first throught was to design a name space where the branching started
at the country level.  That is, names would look like this:
	/CO=xx/O=org-name/OU=xxxx/L=xxxx/etc
where the org-name was constant and the x-fields varied.

However, the (small number of) examples I've seen published seem to do
things differently.  They start the branching under the organization name.
For example, the OSF literature on their DCE (which incorporates Siemans
Dir-X for X.500) shows a diagram with both the OSF's Cambridge and Munich
offices under /CO=US/O=OSF/etc.

So my questions are:  Are both approaches feasible?  If so, what are the
trade-offs to consider between them?

Thanks in advance for any advice or pointers to other resources.
--
Bob Tinkelman, Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc., 212-425-5830, bob@camb.com