IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Three revised Internet Drafts

Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Sat, 01 February 1992 12:30 UTC

Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04750; 1 Feb 92 7:30 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04745; 1 Feb 92 7:30 EST
Received: from glenlivet.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.09234-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Sat, 1 Feb 1992 11:47:26 +0000
To: Paul-Andre Pays <Paul-Andre.Pays@inria.fr>
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Three revised Internet Drafts
Phone: +44-71-380-7294
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 01 Feb 92 11:43:54 +0100. <9202011043.AA14492@nuri.inria.fr>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 92 11:47:25 +0000
Message-ID: <645.696944845@UK.AC.UCL.CS>
From: Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk>

ISO SC 18/CCITT SG VII are at each others throats arguing about the merits
of "/" vs ";".  There are two strong camps, and many many postion papers.
The argument is quite unbelievable, and makes our discussion pale into
insignificance.  "/" currently has the high ground, but ";" is fighting back
hard.  Trying to introduce "," would be amusing, but I don't rate the
chances.

The only thing that I feel strongly about is that "," is allowed in UFN.
I think that this corresponds to "natural" usage, and is one of the real
strengths of UFN.   

I welcome any constructive suggestions to reach concensus.

Steve

PS It has been noted that if you use "@" as the DN separator you arrive at
the QUIPU internal syntax.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email