Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!axion!planet!mdc
From: mdc@planet.bt.co.uk (Martin Chapman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: X.500 Nonsense: Summary
Message-ID: <1990Feb12.140956.27362@planet.bt.co.uk>
Date: 12 Feb 90 14:09:56 GMT
Sender: usenet@planet.bt.co.uk (Usenet News Manager)
Organization: RT511, BT Research Labs, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, UK
Lines: 38


Here is an edited compilation of the replies  from the following question.

       Does anyone *REALLY* understand X.500 ?

>Lampson doesn't fully understand X.500; he's tried to avoid having
>to..I heard him admit this at a meeting after I attempted to get *anyone*
>there to explain what X.500 names look like.  The syntax was really
>bizarre.

I guess I'm in good company !

>Why don't you just get a copy of some X.500 software and see for yourself
>what X.500 is about.  Get a copy of the ISODE (ask Bug-ISODE@NISC.NYSER.NET
>for the details).
 
Although this is a good idea, the main problem is that I will gain insight 
into how the implementors interpreted the standard, which is slightly
different.

>There are probably one or two people in the world who have a reasonable
>understanding of X.500.

>If this statement is really true, X.500 is in big trouble!

I'm keeping my mouth shut.

-------------
Thanks for the replies, it does seem that I'm not alone out there.
I'm going to have yet another read of the standard. Fortunately I am only
looking from an academic viewpoint, so do not have to do any implementation;
the best of British (luck) to all those that do.

--
Martin Chapman PhD, BSc, SMBCS, B/Tec, GCE, CSE, 11+
British Telecom Research Labs, Martlesham Heath, Suffolk, U.K.

"Life's a Bitch, then you die."