Re: Three revised Internet Drafts

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

> From [e-mail] Fri Jan 31 11:22:03 1992
> Received: from concorde.inria.fr by nuri.inria.fr, Fri, 31 Jan 92 11:22:02 +0100
> Received: from kwai.inria.fr by concorde.inria.fr, Fri, 31 Jan 92 11:22:04 +0100
> X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/;
> 	Relayed; 31 Jan 92 11:22:35+0100
> X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=_/C=GB/;
> 	Relayed; 31 Jan 92 10:16:46 GMT
> X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold_400/C=gb/;
> 	Relayed; 31 Jan 92 09:54:11 GMT
> X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=_/C=GB/;
> 	Relayed; 31 Jan 92 09:53:51 GMT
> X400-Received: by /ADMD=GOLD_400/C=GB/;
> 	Relayed; 31 Jan 92 09:54:52 GMT
> X400-Received: by /ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/;
> 	Relayed; 31 Jan 92 09:52:50 GMT
> X400-Received: by /PRMD=switch/ADMD=arcom/C=ch/;
> 	Relayed; 31 Jan 92 09:47:53 GMT
> Date: 31 Jan 92 09:47:53 GMT
> From: Thomas Lenggenhager <[e-mail]>
> Message-Id: <7036*[e-mail]>
> To: Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
> Cc: osi-ds <[e-mail]>
> In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Three revised Internet Drafts
> Importance: Normal
> 
> I support what Christian suggests and I would like to expand it a bit:
> > 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: ...>.
> 
> Why not suggest the use of:
> 	<DN: bla, bla, bla>	for distinguished name
> 	<UFN: bla, bla, bla>	for a UFN name
> and	<X400: bla; bla; bla>	for X.400 ORName
> 

No Thomas, if you are consistent you should recommend

       <DN: bla; bla; bla>     for distinguished name
 and   <X400: bla; bla; bla>   for X.400 ORName

 The distinction being done by the prefix but certainjly not
 by changing slightly the syntax (very awkward and error prone)

-- PAP