Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!rutgers!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de!grimm
From: grimm@darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de (Ruediger Grimm)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: concise format
Message-ID: <2947*grimm@darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de>
Date: 24 Oct 89 10:12:00 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 48
Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov

To: Jacob Palme <C=no;PRMD=se;O=qz;OU=com;S=JPalme>

I would like to encourage Jacob to continue in his efforts to
define a concise address notation format.
The RARE format demands a basic knowledge of
the attribute structure of addresses. It enables to express any portion
of an address from a single attribute up to a full address and will
therefore always be needed regardless of any shorter or longer format
of address notation. However, from the users point of view, I don't see
a necessity of a knowledge of the address structure, in that we have
computers to do the job. With paper mail it is common to write

	  To: Ruediger Grimm
	      Jahnstr. 45
	      D-6100 Darmstadt
	      B.R.Deutschland

	  To: Fatuma Dakinigbe
	      B.P. 284
	      Cotonou
	      R.P.Benin

The second attribute in the examples above are different, one is a street,
the other one is a post box. The local postmasters (in Darmstadt and in
Cotonou, resp.) will know, what kind of attribute is following.
This kind of thoughts will not be solved inside of X.400, of course,
nor perhaps in X.500 (who was it to ask for X.600 as a general problem
solver for X.500?). However, this gives a direction of what we shall expect
from future user interfaces.

Jacob's notation is a step in this direction. If the rules become less
strict in the future, and the MTA's more intelligent, both
    /Ruediger/Grimm//Darmstadt//GMD/DBP/DE, and
    /Ruediger/Grimm//Darmstadt/-//GMD/DBP/DE
might make the message find its correct route.

Wouldn't it be a good idea, to ALLOW for attributes in RARE-format
inside the concise format? Such like:
    /Ruediger/Grimm//OU=Darmstadt//GMD/DBP/DE
RFC987 fans might recognise something in it.

With THIS perspective in mind, it becomes a minor question, which
delimiter would be best. I find the slash one of the ugliest possiblities,
but I also see Jacob's reasons for the slash.
Don't forget, that slashes can be part of an attribute value.
Why not the semicolon?

Greetings --- Ruediger