RE: ldap PICS

[Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Harald Alvestrand [SMTP:Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no]
> Sent:	Thursday, June 04, 1998 9:12 PM
> To:	Alan Lloyd; 'Christopher Oliva'; 'LDAP EXT'
> Subject:	RE: ldap PICS
> 
> At 08:58 01.06.98 +1000, Alan Lloyd wrote:
> >
> >In the ISO/ITU world, the rules are - that the standard cannot reach
> >Draft International status without a PICS - and from that ISPs are
> >produced. That way we dont end up with so many variances of non
> >interoperating implementations. ie. customers get some comfort with
> >stability in standards.
> 
> Grumble.
> 
> If you consider the current status of X.400 implementations (with
> PICS)
> a "success", I hope never to encounter something you consider a
> "failure".
> 
> The IETF equivalent to the ISP is the "MUST", "SHOULD" and "MAY" in
> the
> standard itself; the intent of IETF standards is that all products
> that
> implement all the MUSTs are able to interwork.
> 
	Thats the theory of interoperability - But when the specs get to
the SHOULDs and the MAYs  - they generally dont.

	 Its also hard to to get a document in text form with these
Musts and Mays and Shoulds  and say to all how one completely or
partially implements it. Tabes are much more precise - and with precise
tables one can precisely define the engineering. Without them it tends
to be imprecise. Notheing is perfect though - its just that a PICs and
ISP has more precision for more precise engineering.
	However, one does not need precision if one is just adding bits.
I could never comprehend how one can believe that a text document
randomly scattered with a few compliant keywords makes precise
engineering .. so please do advise. Could I build a commercial contract
on such text?

	This 747 MUST have 4 engines and SHOULD have steel wheels but
MAY have Wooden ones.... what is that all about - commercially ....I
wont fly it.!!

	More than Grumble

> The fact that people sell products with conformance claims that are
> simply manufactured out of thin air is a fact of life for both ISO
> standards
> and IETF standards; in the ISO case, there are people who are making a
> living testing some aspects of conformance and issuing certificates
> thereof.
> This MAY be to the advantage of the industry. Or it may not.
> 
	But now some people think that PICS should be performed for IETF
LDAP products. In addition these people  are just demonstrating their
belief that software engineering - for the purposes of system
interoperation - should be thoroughly tested - rather than just throw
some wooden wheels on a 747.
	I welcome people like that in the IT industry - the more the
better - Better go now in case my untested mailer crashes again..

	regards alan
>                           Harald A
> 
> 
> -- 
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no