Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!ucsd!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de!grimm
From: grimm@darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de (Ruediger Grimm)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Notes from the Bari meeting of the ISO messaging group
Message-ID: <2931*grimm@darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de>
Date: 18 Oct 89 08:29:00 GMT
References: <456080@QZCOM>
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26
Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov

I would like to suggest to the ISO messaging group to take the two
formats,

   ***** RARE format:
   C=SE;ADMD=TEDE;PRMD=QZ;O=Stockholm University;OU=DSV;GN=Jacob;SN=Palme
     
   ***** Concise format:
   /Jacob/Palme//DSV/Stockholm University//QZ/TEDE/SE
     
not as excluding alternatives. While the RARE format would cover the
needs of the Concise format, the concise format is still shorter and
has thus the advantage of the RFC822 format. It looks odd, if some
attributes are missing, and a sequence of /// and /-/ is confusing.
However, I agree, that in normal cases the concise format is indeed
concise.

On the other hand, the concise format does not cover all needs of
the RARE format. If the concise format is going to be standardized,
there is still a need for the RARE format, namely for all cases,
where portions of addresses are expressed, such as in technical
papers (e.g. to explain the concise format).
The keyword oriented format of RARE does also free us from a strict
ordering of the attributes (which has not been particularly recognised
so far).

Greetings --- Ruediger