[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Tw bobs worth on TOP, LDAP standards process and subschemasub entry attribute usage in rootDSE
I'm no apologist for giants, but I have my fingers crossed that David's
scenario might have a happier ending, to wit:
Suppose that on some sunny day Giant B (or a maverick, upstart working
group within Giant B) decided that it would really "play nice" within
a certain protocol standards playground. But when Giant B's purportedly
standards-adherent product finally sees the light of day, the other
kids on the playground instantly pounce on its fatal flaws.
Giant B recoils, horrified by its own blunder. Giant B does not want to
"succeed" in its old way of embrace/extend/kludge-beyond-recognition-
and-interoperability. It did not intend this result, not this time.
Being flush with liquidity, Giant B chooses a most expedient strategy.
It buys Company C, an accomplished and widely-recognized player on
this particular playground. Voila! Instant cred, expertise, and a
golden opportunity to Do the Right Thing.
Now, surely, all eyes on the playground will focus on what B does
with C. Will C be tasked with applying its expertise to the core
of the product?
Try another metaphor. B's ship has veered from its intended standards-
adherent course. This is because its sails have been jury-rigged. In
the heat of the race, somebody hoisted the mainsail upside-down. B's
ship will never reach its destination in this condition. Now B brings
the master riggers (C) onboard. Will B allow C to strip the rigging,
temporarily becalm the ship, and rig it up right?
If there were a Giant B and a Company C, I think even some of the
"simple minded customers" would want to know how these tales end.
David Chadwick wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Your long message was very informative and comprehensive (so I
> have not reproduced it below). But unfortunately you have indicated
> that nothing can really be done about a manufacturer (if one
> happened to exist) that:
>
> i) says in all its marketing blurb that it supports LDAP, because it
> knows that everyone wants this
>
> ii) purposefully ensures that its LDAP implementation will not
> interwork with all the other ones that are around
>
> iii) manages to get the largest market share because it bundles its
> LDAP software with other software that already has a large market
> share
>
> iv) consequently forces everyone else to follow it in its non
> conformant implementation, as simple minded customers dont really
> care who is following the standard or not, they just want Minion A to
> interwork with Giant B.
>
> In the end the IETF re-write the standard to agree with Giant B, as
> everyone now does it this way anyway, so Giant B then changes its
> implementation to be non-conformant again, as Giant B does not
> really like standards other than its own.
>
> I'm glad we dont have any giants like B around here :-)
>
> David
>
> ***************************************************
>
> David Chadwick
> IT Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
> Tel +44 161 295 5351 Fax +44 161 745 8169
> *NEW* Mobile +44 790 167 0359 *NEW*
> Email D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk
> Home Page http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
> Understanding X.500 http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
> X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
> Entrust key validation string MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J
>
> ***************************************************
--
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
# Larry Bartz | |
# lbartz@infostream.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, |
# | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! |
# | I've got a gnu attitude! |
# voice (317) 226-7060 | |
# FAX (317) 226-6378 | |
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|