Subject: Fwd: Re: A different architecture

From: Elliott Ginsburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 08:18:48 -0500

I'm adding to my own message. Someone also stated on the list that we do
not want to have a directory between our apps and our PKI services. But,
again, how often today do we have DNS between our apps and our network
communication services?

Elliott Ginsburg

>X-Sender: [email-masked]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 
>Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 08:00:45 -0500
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Elliott Ginsburg <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: A different architecture
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
>I think it was on this thread that someone stated that 'we would never have
>a global distributed directory'. But we already have one (DNS), so why is
>it inconceivable that we would have another? I don't advocate stretching
>DNS for this prupose, but it does suggest that we can create global
>directories. Am I missing something here?
>
>Elliott Ginsburg
>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:19:34 -0500

Elliott,

>again, how often today do we have DNS between our apps and our network

We already need the DNS to make the existing Internet protocols work. In
many apps, we don't need a directory to support certs/CRLs, so the
introduction of an additional directory system for that purpose introduces
new failure modes.

steve