Re: UFN take 2

[Alan Young <[e-mail]>]

> 3) "," as a separator.  I note your view to make the change noted in the
> issue.  I'd like to hear other views (particularly anyone who is strongly
> going to support the current position - I do not wnat to make this change,
> and then hear violent complaints).

I seem to have missed the original note on this; what is being proposed?

> My view:  I HATE typed names.  So do most users.  I would like to remove
> typed naming from X.500 (and nearly suceeded, but that is another story). I
> want to focus on the typeless form, and only use types when I have to.  I
> guess that I still see OSI-DS 24 (UFN) as the real solution.  

I have a lot of sympathy with this but the trouble is that there are too
many different possible naming structures:

    C,O,Ou...
    C,L,O,L,Ou
    C,St,O, ...

and there is also the increasing likelyhood of multi-attribute RDNs
which must be unambiguously specified.

Alan.