Re: OCSP and LDAP

["Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, you guys are all much smarter than I am.

I used to think I knew a lot about Directory, then I attended a
few meetings. I figured that since I was pretty clever in my
understanding of the abstract syntax and notation that I
probably had a major leg up. I figured that directory was
just another term for database.

I figured that by having implemented shttp and early ssl in C
and the first code ever (I think) to issue a v1 certificate at IBM,
that maybe I had a clue. Turns out that just about an hour in a
Directory meeting is enough to make your hat fit better.

Extremely smart people involved. And they're probably not
working on what most folks think they are.

Phil




Tony Bartoletti wrote:

> At 06:52 PM 1/8/2003 +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>
> > Other person: "Why is X.500 so special?  Why is no-one else doing this?"
> >
> > Me: "Get your favourite book on database technology and look up
> >      'Hierarchical databases'".
> >
> > [Time passes]
> >
> > Other person: "I looked in several books.  Many didn't mention it at 
> > all,
> >                and one had a half-page historical note saying it's 
> > something
> >                that was obsoleted by better technology more than two 
> > decades
> >                ago".
> >
> > Me: "Exactly".
>
>
>
> Heh.  Actually, hierarchical databases can be superlative to most all 
> other technologies, when one has a static taxonomy to support.  Trying 
> to represent (no less manage) a dynamically changing global namespace 
> with scores of independent geopolitical naming authorities with a 
> hierarchical database is rather ... ridiculous. :)
>
> Cheers!  ____tony____