Reply to Reply to A simpler idea for the missing O mapping?

"Kevin E. Jordan" <Kevin.E.Jordan@cdc.com> Fri, 25 February 1994 20:27 UTC

To: mhs-ds@mercury.udev.cdc.com
Subject: Reply to Reply to A simpler idea for the missing O mapping?
In-reply-to: Your message of "25 Feb 94 16:28:33 +0100" <4008*/c=CH/admd=ARCOM/prmd=SWITCH/o=switch/s=Eppenberger/@MHS>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 14:12:24 -0600
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Kevin E. Jordan" <Kevin.E.Jordan@cdc.com>
Message-Id: <2d6e5ba937c3002@mercury.udev.cdc.com>

Urs suggested:

> If I'm not correct, then we should choose a placeholder
> value, which can't be used in a Standard Attribute,
> for example '%'. This would make everyting clear.

Michael suggested:

> What about using the value $empty? This cannot be used as a PRMD or ORG, but
> as a RDN and it denotes clearly, what is meant.

I think that you are both forgetting that we need to support both X.400/84 and
X.400/88.  In X.400/88, O/R address elements can be PrintableString -or-
T.61 String.  The characters '%' and '$' are both valid T.61 characters, so
both '%' and '$empty' represent valid X.400/88 O/R address elements.

Also, you need to remember that currently the X.500 mHSxxx attributes are
defined with syntax caseIgnoreString which I think is PrintableString or
T.61 string, so this will make it difficult to define a string which is
valid for the X.500 place holder attribute but invalid for an O/R address
element.

I think that single space may be the best choice.

Reply to A simpler idea for the missing O mapping? Urs Eppenberger
Reply to Reply to A simpler idea for the missing … Kevin E. Jordan