Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!rutgers!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!cblpf.att.COM!mark
From: mark@cblpf.att.COM (Mark R Horton)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: concise format
Message-ID: <8911151913.AA03468@tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 15 Nov 89 19:13:14 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 30
Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov

> Why not reference a telephone-type number to the X.500 services.
> Everyone knows how a number relates to a person with phones and faxen.
> For this to work, we need the number defined in the same way internet
> numbers are chosen and telephone numbers supplied: centrally.

It's an interesting idea, but it has some serious problems.

For one thing, there is no notion of a universal email number.  Even
the X.121 addresses people were talking about only address down to
the machine level, and they don't work if your machine isn't on the
worldwide X.25 internetwork.

For another thing, while it is certainly true that people are used to
(resigned to?) numbers for telephone, when I receive mail I would
certainly prefer to read an X.400 address than a number when I'm
trying to figure out who the mail came from.

> "Why do I have to have an under_score between my names?"
> "What does an at-symbol look like and where is it on MY keyboard?"

Funny, our users (including secretaries) don't seem to have this problem.
If you give them a fixed character string, they understand that if they
type that exactly, it will get there.  Unfortunately, X.400 addresses are
not fixed character strings, and that, I think, is part of the problem.

If you really feel that numbers are better than names, propose to your
users that they start using 14 digit numbers for their paper mail instead
of postal addresses, and see how they react.

	Mark