Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!rutgers!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!emsesmc.emse.fr!pays
From: pays@emsesmc.emse.fr (Paul-Andre PAYS)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: concise format
Message-ID: <891024190829+0100.5523A.emsesmc*pays@emsesmc.emse.fr>
Date: 24 Oct 89 19:44:00 GMT
References: <457964(a)QZCOM>
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 36
Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov

Your remarks about the "attributes" users are interested with is right,
however, are you aware that you are just using the justificatons
(reasoning) for X.500 Directory name for which ADMD PRMD are of no
relevance.

If your concise notation is reorientated to be a concise simple way of
giving Directory Names, then I am OK, BUT wait for X.500 to be
available.

If you still think of it as a short hand for ORaddresses (X.400 88),
then I completely disagree with you, about the supposed user
friendliness of the concise notation.
	1. an address is an address within an addressing space (all
	attributes are of relevance, eg ADMD to indicate through which
	ADMD a user is to be reached)
	2. positional paramters are awkward as soon they are more than
	a few
	3. I am convinced that, even if they don't have to understand
	the detailed model and concept associated to each keyword,
	users
		. have to know to which keyword a value is associated with
		. will remind much more easily a keyworded name than a
		long multislashed string.

We have to remind that we are only dealing with a temporary state (no
Directory available) and that within 1 or 2 years we will be using
directories:
	let addresses be adresses that can be used by skilled people
	push provider to provide nice personal "address book" facility
	 enabling to use personal nicknames
	push for X.500 early install and operation
	prepare an easy notation for directory enquiries

Regards,

-- PAP