Re: Three revised Internet Drafts

[Paul-Andre Pays <[e-mail]>]

	From [e-mail] Sat Feb  1 10:07:09 1992
	Received: from concorde.inria.fr by nuri.inria.fr, Sat, 1 Feb 92 10:07:08 +0100
	Received: from chenas.inria.fr by concorde.inria.fr, Sat, 1 Feb 92 10:07:11 +0100
	Received: from mailimailo.cicb.fr by chenas.inria.fr (5.65c8d/91.12.15)
		via Fnet-EUnet id AA23652; Sat, 1 Feb 1992 10:06:50 +0100 (MET)
	Received: from mailimailo.cicb.fr by mailimailo.cicb.fr (Sat, 1 Feb 92 10:07:49 +0100 - 5.65a/150391)
	Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
	Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
	Received: from mailimailo.cicb.fr by mailimailo.cicb.fr (Sat, 1 Feb 92 10:07:38 +0100 - 5.65a/150391)
	X400-Received: by /PRMD=cicb/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/;
		Relayed; 01 Feb 92 10:07:37+0100
	X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/;
		Relayed; 01 Feb 92 10:07:02+0100
	X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=_/C=GB/;
		Relayed; 01 Feb 92 09:06:12 GMT
	X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold_400/C=gb/;
		Relayed; 01 Feb 92 09:01:55 GMT
	X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=GOLD_400/C=GB/;
		Relayed; 01 Feb 92 09:01:42 GMT
	Date: 01 Feb 92 09:01:42 GMT
	From: Steve Hardcastle-Kille <[e-mail]>
	Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
	To: Paul-Andre Pays <[e-mail]>
	Cc: [e-mail]
	In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
	Subject: Re: Three revised Internet Drafts
	Importance: Normal
	Comment: Mail number 60
	
	RFC-822-HEADERS:
	Phone: [phone]
	
	Out of the 25 possible options (using your crieria), I don't quite see
	why the three you picked were the only possibilities.  
	
	
	Steve
	
	PS 25 comes from 5 * 5 (DN and UFN can each be "," only, ";" only, or either
	on input with two fixed an one flexible output).  
	
	PPS If we had a straw poll, I bet that someone would vote for every possible 
	option of the 25.
	
	
	
	

Steve you arecertainly right but is this kind of statement
helping progress the thing?

Real problems are:

is it a probleme to have 2 recommended delimiters for each representation?
   for DN I tend to say yes
   for UFN i would say not that much

is it a problem to push for adoption of a single delimiter by anuone?
  in such a case I support certainly ","
  but are we able if pushing very hard alltogether to have CCITT and
    ISO accept "," for ORaddresses?
  I have the feeling that it is possible, if we convince RARE people,
   to succeed such a "coup". ie. having "," substituting to ";"

Thus I would explore the second solution before getting into
the trouble of different formats for input and output, which
are allways misleading for many users (because in many real life situation
it is not that clear for them, what is an output or an input)

-- PAP

PS: If really "," is a mandatory form for UFN there must be very very strong 
arguments to convince ISO, CCITT that "," is not only acceptable
but even good for ORaddresses.
On the other hand if they have strong arguments proving that they should
stick to ";", I don't really see why these strong arguments would
not be applicable to UFN and thus
one way or the other WE WILL BE ABLE to standardize
on a SINGLE DELIMITER for all 3 forms (DN, UFN and ORaddr),
if only we really look for this result.