IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Three revised Internet Drafts

Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr> Fri, 31 January 1992 14:27 UTC

Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10376; 31 Jan 92 9:27 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10360; 31 Jan 92 9:26 EST
Received: from mitsou.inria.fr by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.22653-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Fri, 31 Jan 1992 09:03:41 +0000
Received: from localhost by mitsou.inria.fr with SMTP (5.65c/IDA-1.2.8) id AA20524; Fri, 31 Jan 1992 10:04:55 +0100
Message-Id: <199201310904.AA20524@mitsou.inria.fr>
To: Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk, Dave Piscitello <dave@sabre.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Three revised Internet Drafts
In-Reply-To: Your message of "30 Jan 92 17:37:45 GMT." <1922.696793065@UK.AC.UCL.CS>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 10:04:55 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr>
X-Mts: smtp

Steve,

I just wanted to point our that if the only think that externally
distinguishes the two formats is the separator, then users will be lost, and
will use one for the other. If distinction is what you need, then you should
rather enforce it. Something like <DN: bla, bla, bla> vs <X400: ...>.

It is easy to explain why X.400 1984 ORNames and X.500 Names look the same.
The idea in 81-82 was that the ORNames would be exactly directory names --
hence the attribute structure. ADMD and PRMD were latter introduced to
facilitate routing in the absence of directory, but all other standard
attributes were designed to be keys in a local directory. A remainder of this
is the "ambiguous address" non delivery report code: an address cannot be
ambiguous, only a name can!

Christian Huitema

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email