Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-ses!hpcuhb!hpindda!atkins
From: atkins@hpindda.HP.COM (Brian Atkins)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: X.500 Nonsense: Summary
Message-ID: <5560052@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Feb 90 21:06:48 GMT
References: <1990Feb12.140956.27362@planet.bt.co.uk>
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 27

I sent a response to the poster of this basenote, asking if there were any
specific questions.  Even though I have received no reply, I would like to see
this discussion continue.  

Although I am no expert in X.500, I am currently part of a lab working on 
OSI applications such as X.500 and X.400.  I do understand the X.500 
standard (Recommendation) to some extent and learn more about it each day.  
In addition, I am in the company of persons who know quite a bit about X.500.

If there are specific questions or areas if confusion/interest, I would like
to see them brought up here.  I would be willing to try to answer them or
refer them to people who are better qualified.  

If the spirit of this basenote was to express frustration and seek to
understand something about X.500, then let's continue. If it was mearly to 
slam X.500, then just claiming it is not possible to understand is a poor 
slam at best (and is more a comment on the reader than the standard).  

Even though the standard is very formal and stuffed full of syntax junk
and definitions, it is possible to understand it and implement it.  I 
see no point in arguing whether it could have been presented in a more
readable form or not; it is the way it is.   If the goal is to understand 
it, then you must come to terms with the way it is presented.


Brian Atkins
atkins@hpindqa.hp.com