From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Oct 29 15:31:01 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA25073 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 15:31:01 -0800 Received: from eldorado.net-tel.co.uk (eldorado.net-tel.co.uk [193.122.171.253]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA25002 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 15:30:53 -0800 From: Andrew.Gordon@net-tel.co.uk Received: (from root@localhost) by eldorado.net-tel.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.10) id XAA13252; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 23:30:14 GMT X400-Received: by mta "eldorado" in "/PRMD=net-tel/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/"; Relayed; Sun, 29 Oct 95 23:28:49 +0000 X400-Received: by mta "net-tel cambridge" in "/PRMD=net-tel/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/"; Relayed; Sun, 29 Oct 95 23:28:47 +0000 X400-Received: by "/PRMD=NET-TEL/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/"; Relayed; Sun, 29 Oct 95 23:28:47 +0000 X400-MTS-Identifier: ["/PRMD=NET-TEL/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/";hst:290-951029232847-4F6A] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) X400-Originator: Andrew.Gordon@net-tel.co.uk Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 23:28:47 +0000 Content-Identifier: Re(2): New lmben Message-Id: <"MAC-951029232845-4BE9*/G=Andrew/S=Gordon/O=NET-TEL Computer Systems Ltd/PRMD=NET-TEL/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/"@MHS> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: hasty@rah.star-gate.com 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> Subject: Re(2): New lmbench available (fwd) Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > 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 copy). 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 about.