🚀 go-pugleaf

peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>Only if you have cheap real-time access to the database. X.400 and X.500 is
>a solution for rich folks or service bureaus. It doesn't scale well to low
>bandwidth loosely-coupled systems.

I am especially interested in using X.400/X.500 over periodic dialup
connections with slow lines (e.g. 9600bits/sec). If you can't bring the
user to the database in realtime, then bring the database to the local system.
If I see the huge traffic that is transported in the USENET every day from
node to node in dialup systems, then it should be no problem to have a
permanent copy of large portions of the directory information tree using
the X.500(92) DISP (directory information shadowing protocol).

It is not clearly specified in the standards, but I believe it is all right
if you set up a network that consists of DSAs that only support the DISP
instead of the usual DSP. Only a few DSAs in the net have to support 
also DSP, so that the rest of the world can ready their shadows.

Comments?

I am interested in implementing such a biest. The DISP protocol is really
simple compared to DSP. I agree that X.400 is not much fun without a
directory, but believe me, the X.400/X.500 combination (together with
the X.gc stuff for NEWS) will be the prefered email system in a few years!

Markus

---
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -=-=- University of Erlangen, Germany
Internet: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de  |  X.500 entry available
-A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't-
-even know existed can render your own computer unusable. (Leslie Lamport)-