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

Michael Storz <michael.r.storz@lrz-muenchen.de> Mon, 28 February 1994 17:24 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06298; 28 Feb 94 12:24 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06294; 28 Feb 94 12:24 EST
Received: from mercury.udev.cdc.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20352; 28 Feb 94 12:24 EST
Received: by mercury.udev.cdc.com; Mon, 28 Feb 94 11:22:43 -0600
X-From: michael.r.storz@lrz-muenchen.de Mon Feb 28 11:22 CST 1994
Received: from cdsmail.cdc.com by mercury.udev.cdc.com; Mon, 28 Feb 94 11:22:39 -0600
Received: from cd1.lrz-muenchen.de by cdsmail.cdc.com id SMTP-0012d722846003971; Mon, 28 Feb 94 11:22:20 -0600
Received: by cd1.lrz-muenchen.de; Mon, 28 Feb 94 18:22:03 +0100
X400-Received: by /c=de/admd=d400/prmd=lrz-muenchen/ ; Relayed ; 28 Feb 94 17:19:26 Z
X400-Received: by mta MTALRZCD1 in /c=de/admd=d400/prmd=lrz-muenchen/ ; Relayed ; 28 Feb 94 18:22:01 +0100
X400-Received: by mta MTALRZVEE in /c=de/admd=d400/prmd=lrz-muenchen/ ; Relayed ; 28 Feb 94 17:19:27 Z
X400-MTS-Identifier: /c=de/admd=d400/prmd=lrz-muenchen/ ; 940228175543103-MTALRZVEE
Content-Identifier: 940228175543103-
Content-Return: Allowed
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 ( 2 )
Conversion: Allowed
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
Priority: normal
Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited
Alternate-Recipient: Prohibited
X400-Originator: michael.r.storz@lrz-muenchen.de
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure: ;
Message-Id: <940228175543103-MTALRZVEE*/c=de/admd=d400/prmd=lrz-muenchen/o=/ou=LRZ/s=Storz/g=Michael/i=R/@MHS>
In-Reply-To: <2d6e5ba937c3002@mercury */c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=cdc/o=udev/ou=mercury/s=2d6e5ba937c3002/@MHS>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 17:19:26 +0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Michael Storz <michael.r.storz@lrz-muenchen.de>
To: Return requested <mhs-ds@mercury.udev.cdc.com>
Subject: Reply to Reply to A simpler idea for the missing O mapping?

> 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.

You are right. I have only checked PRMD, which is printablestring (or
numericstring) and forgot to lookup for organization, which got the extension
of T.61 in X.400/88.

>
> 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.

I do not like space, but under the above circumstances (no chance to find a
value, which is not allowed as PRMD or ORG and allowed in pRMDName or
mHSOrganizationName) a single space may indeed be the best choice.

Regards,

Michael