Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpindda!kmont
From: kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: ROSE-based protocols.
Message-ID: <5560010@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 89 02:12:27 GMT
References: <3546@geaclib.UUCP>
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 24

/ hpindda:comp.protocols.iso / joey@geaclib.UUCP (Joey De Wiele) /  7:58 am  Jan 10, 1989 /
> Where does the responsibility for dealing with this service reside
> within an Application Protocol? For instance, there is nothing within
> the X.500 Directory Recommendations which describe how to handle this
> service. Is this a local matter?

Right off the top of my head (with no research whatsoever <- note
disclaimer), I'd venture the RO-REJECT-U service would be used for
rejecting Directory operations based on implementational constraints,
for starters.  For instance, what do you do if a READ operation is 
requested, and an error occurs which is not defined within the X.5xx
suite of protocols (implementational error or otherwise)?   I'm sure 
there are other mappings of services, but I don't have time at the 
moment to cross reference between X.519 and X.219  (dinnertime!).   
Will think more about it when I get a chance...

> If anyone has experience with implementing ROSE-based protocols, I'd
> like to hear what you did with this service.

you can see the general utility in this service though, right?
(might be nice for a ROSE-user to be able to reject operations)


					kevin@the_rose_proponents_guild