Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!MIRSA.INRIA.FR!Christian.Huitema
From: Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR (Christian Huitema)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: concise format
Message-ID: <8910191329.AA09709(a)jerry.inria.fr>
Date: 19 Oct 89 13:34:00 GMT
References: <RFC-822(042)456547(a)QZCOM>
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29
Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov

Jacob,

Your concerns that X.400 "will never become accepted, will become a dead horse,
like Teletex, because of the complicated OR-name structure" is indeed
very reasonable. I remember having once advocated a plain numerical
format for ORNames -- sort of (C/A/PRMD/UA-ID) -- for it would be in
any case simpler than what exist today. However, if your idea is to
push an user friendly form for ORNames, then the obvious solution is to
use precisely what is considered as most user friendly today, i.e.
RFC-822, in a positional format of:
	G.S@(OU.)*O.PRMD.ADMD.C
with a strict obligation of noting all hierachical tokens, i.e ADMD
even if it can be guessed, or O even if it is missing. In short,
without the mappings.

That would lead us to write strings like:
	Christian.Huitema@mirsa.inria.atlas.FR
	grimm@darmstadt..gmd.dbp.DE
	eppenberger@verw.switch.switch.arcom.CH
Indeed, we will need a more complex convention for:
	steve.kille@cs.ucl.uk\.ac.gold_400.GB
in order to note blanks and to escape dots. But that is a small cost.

But, if you really want a "string" format that can be understoud by all
(well, a large number of) interfaces, then RFC-822 is the obvious candidate.

Christian Huitema
PS.
However, Teletex used a very simple numerical address format