Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 29 Oct 95 23:28:47 +0000
To:        hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re(2): New lmbench available (fwd)
Message-ID:  <"MAC-951029232845-4BE9*/G=Andrew/S=Gordon/O=NET-TEL Computer Systems Ltd/PRMD=NET-TEL/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/"@MHS>
In-Reply-To: <"SunOS:12424-951029025231-5E97*/DD.RFC-822=owner-hackers(a)FreeBSD.ORG/O=internet/PRMD=NET-TEL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/"@MHS>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> Either X.500 is a piece of shit or Novell failed to implement X.500 correctly.
> For sure at some point there was the concept of X.500 server's content 
> replication. I shudder to have to look at another OSI document...

The original (1988) X.500 did not have replication, although many
implementations of it provided replication in proprietary ways.  The 1993
edition of X.500 provides a standardised replication mechanism.

Replication in this sense means multiple DSAs holding copies of a certain
portion of the Directory Information Tree (with protocols and procedures to
ensure that they remain in sync) as opposed to simply caching information on an
ad-hoc basis (which any DSA can do, unless the client requests an authoritative

Hence the information in the directory itself is replicated, but I am not sure
this is what you were talking about - replication of services whose addresses
you happen to have looked up in the Directory is a matter for those service
protocols, not the directory itself.

AFAIK, the Novell NDS is not an implementation of X.500, it merely uses the same
information modelling concepts with proprietary access protcols etc.  This may
be useful if you wish to migrate/duplicate information from an NDS system into
an X.500 system, but it is misleading to use NDS as a model of what X.500 is

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <"MAC-951029232845-4BE9*/G=Andrew/S=Gordon/O=NET-TEL Computer Systems Ltd/PRMD=NET-TEL/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/">