🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19921102.005@erik.naggum.no>, enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) writes:
|> I feel compelled to rectify this:
|> 
|> gary s anderson <gsa@easyaspi.udev.cdc.com> writes:
|> |
|> |   NOTE - the X.500 pilot project was explicitly called a "white pages"
|> |   project because of issues raised by the poverty-stricken U.S. phone
|> |   companies (i.e. concerns about a "yellow pages" conflict).  I do not
|> |   recall all the details (e.g. yellow pages on a government sponsered
|> |   backbone, etc.), however, maybe someone "in-the-know" might
|> |   consider contributing to this thread.....
|> 
|> This is called "slander" where I come from, and is most unbecoming.

The context is the 1989 INTEROP BOF meeting "White Pages for TCP/IP
Internets".  I do not have any explicit literature from the meeting,
only vague recollections and sloppy notes.  I believe there is still
a general issue, in the U.S., about the use of the Internet for 
provision of "commercial" services.  If someone knows that this is not
true please cite your source (NOTE - this general limitation was also
mentioned in one of the plenary speeches in the 1992 INTEROP held
in D.C. this spring).  If yellow pages were supplied on the U.S.
Internet (i.e. a commercial service) it would be in conflict of Internet
policies.  Once again, if someone has a referencable source 
contradicting this statement please supply this source so we are all current
on this information.

As for the name, I'm sure they could have used anything (other than
yellow pages, of course).  The "White Pages" name was simply chosen
to explicitly document the available capabilities.  Re-reading my
initial post, I realize this point could easily be misunderstood
(maybe had I used "explicitly limited to" versus "explicitly called",
my message would have been clearer).

|> 
|> First of all, "white pages" commonly refer to listings sorted
|> alphabetically rather than topically, such as by service.  Unless I have
|> misunderstood X.500, it's precisely a "white pages" kind of thing.
|> Hence the name.

I'm not sure where you believe the limitation in X.500 exists.
As a simple test, do you think application services' definitions are
white pages or yellow pages definitions (e.g. where is my FTAM server)?

|> 
|> Second, what you probably confuse this issue with, is Sun Microsystems,
|> Inc, and their "yellow pages" (YP) distributed database which threatened
|> the trademark belonging to _British_ Telecom, the _U.K._ phone company.
|> It seems that Bwitish trademark law is such that they have a flat
|> namespace, which enabled/forced BT to sue SMI.  SMI was forced to name
|> it "NIS" as a result of this suit.

I have no such confusion....

|> 
|> Third, if you think stupid Bwitish trademark laws have anything to do
|> with how "poverty-stricken" phone companies are, you're _seriously_
|> confused both about legal matters and about the financial status of
|> phone companies.
|> 
|> I have nothing to do with British Telecom, the X.500 white pages
|> project, Sun Microsystems, Inc, or any U.S. phone companies, and this
|> article does not constitute legal advice or opinion.  I'm just concerned
|> with assigning blame and labels of stupidity to the right people, and
|> not generate more confusion than we already have.

We are talking about U.S. Internet policies.  Specifically, about
commercial restrictions.  If you have applicable data please pass on
this germane information.

|> 
|> Best regards,
|> </Erik>
|> --
|> Erik Naggum             :  ISO  8879 SGML     :      +47 295 0313
|>                         :  ISO 10744 HyTime   :
|> <erik@naggum.no>        :  ISO 10646 UCS      :      Memento, terrigena.
|> <enag@ifi.uio.no>       :  ISO  9899 C        :      Memento, vita brevis.