[ih] X.500 document history (Re: NIC, InterNIC, and Modelling Administration)

[John Day]

Yes,  Harald.

What I was referring to were the dates when the New Work Item was 
approved in ISO and perhaps even the date of the first DP ballot. 
That would tell us when it started.

The documents were progressed together in ISO and CCITT.  I believe 
in those days CCITT was still on a 4 year cycle.  Colored books were 
published every 4 years and what was done at that point went in.  ISO 
on the other hand published standards when they passed the IS ballot.

Given the two year difference between the CCITT date and the ISO 
date, I wonder if the CCITT version was the ISO DIS, rather than the 
IS.

At 11:12 +0100 2011/02/18, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>On 02/18/11 00:56, John Day wrote:
>>The thing is I don't know what you think the "OSI issues" were?
>>
>>I would have to look, but I don't think in 1984 that the X.500 work 
>>had started and if it had it would have been very early. They would 
>>have been coming up with a directory protocol and trying to throw 
>>everything in that someone might use for a naming tree.  There was 
>>certainly no consideration of what sorts of naming trees would 
>>actually be created, or for that matter who was going to create 
>>them.  It certainly would not have been "OSI."
>>
>>Lots of people had ideas but there was no OSI position on it.  That 
>>I can guarantee.  The date on X.500 is 1990.  Generally took 4-5 
>>years to do this and the X.500 stuff was highly controversial 
>>within OSI.
>The first version of X.500 was in the ITU-T Blue Book, which was 
>published in 1988. The Red Book (1984) did not have a directory 
>service.
>
>The first "operational" X.500 RFC was RFC 1218, "Naming scheme for 
>c=US", dated April 1991, but it's also referred to in Karen Sollins' 
>"A Plan for Internet Directory Services", July 1989.
>
>It seems reasonable to assume that the basic design work was carried 
>out in 1984-1988.
>
>                    Harald