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 Services
Message-ID: <5560011@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 89 02:20:36 GMT
References: <3547@geaclib.UUCP>
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 15

/ 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!  ;-)