C. Ellison, B. Frantz, B. Lampson, R. Rivest, B. Thomas, T. Ylonen

The original X.500 plan is unlikely ever to come to fruition. Collections of directory entries (such as employee lists, customer lists, contact lists, etc.) are considered valuable or even confidential by those owning the lists and are not likely to be released to the world in the form of an X.500 directory sub-tree. For an extreme example, imagine the CIA adding its directory of agents to a world-wide X.500 pool.
The X.500 idea of a distinguished name (a single, globally unique name that everyone could use when referring to an entity) is also not likely to occur. That idea requires a single, global naming discipline and there are too many entities already in the business of defining names not under a single discipline. Legacy therefore militates against such an idea.

2 thoughts on “C. Ellison, B. Frantz, B. Lampson, R. Rivest, B. Thomas, T. Ylonen

  1. shinichi Post author

    SPKI Certificate Theory

    by C. Ellison, B. Frantz, B. Lampson, R. Rivest, B. Thomas, T. Ylonen

    Network Working Group (Request for Comments: 2693)

    Reply
  2. shinichi Post author

    (sk)

    ITU とか ISO の許に政府の代表が集まって何年も会議を重ね合意に至るというモデルは、あまり有効ではない。

    時間がかかりすぎることもあるが、政府が号令をかければみんながそれに従うという発想自体が破綻していることが大きい。

    政府の合意など意に介さない大学生たちが始めたものが、私たちの道具になっているという現実を前に、政府の代表たちはなにを考えるのだろう。

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.