Re: OSI-DS 40

Tim Howes <tim@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> Fri, 19 March 1993 16:03 UTC

Message-Id: <9303191432.AA15695@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
To: Colin Robbins <c.robbins@nexor.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Barker <P.Barker@cs.ucl.ac.uk>, osi-ds <osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: OSI-DS 40
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Mar 93 09:11:52 GMT." <"lancaster..971:19.03.93.09.10.50*/I=c/S=robbins/O=nexor/PRMD=nexor/ADMD=mark400/C=GB/"@MHS>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 09:32:23 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tim Howes <tim@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>

> From:    Colin Robbins <c.robbins@nexor.co.uk> (DN=Colin Robbins, NeXor Ltd, 
> To:      Paul Barker <P.Barker@cs.ucl.ac.uk> (DN=Paul Barker, Computer Scienc
e, University College London, GB) (Tel +44 71-380-7366)

> Why define new attributes for naming?  I claim using commonName would
> be better.
> ...
> This is a general comment, and does not just relate to OSI-DS 40:
> Unless there is a real reason to use some different attribute for
> naming, why not use commonName for the RDN?

I had the same reaction.  I felt the same way about some other
attributes defined, too, namely IRDescription and ArchiveDescription.
At U-M, we've defined an attribute called multiLineDescription that
has syntax caseIgnoreListSyntax.  Why not use something general like
this for these other descriptions?

One more comment.  There are a couple of places where you defined
new enumerated type attributes (for FileFormat and DocumentType).
While it might not be as elegant in the X.500 sense, I think a
more workable approach is to make these things CaseIgnoreStrings
and include some text about what values are allowable.  This approach
makes it easier for people to support this stuff (no new syntax) and
easier to extend the range of values when a new file format or
document type comes along.                               -- Tim

OSI-DS 40 Colin Robbins
Re: OSI-DS 40 Tim Howes
Re: OSI-DS 40 [identifiers] Mark Wahl
Re: OSI-DS 40 Thomas Lenggenhager
OSI-DS 40 Paul Barker