Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: O/R name component ordering (was: Report from X.400 development
Message-ID: <663647*@MHS>
Date: 15 Mar 91 15:17:27 GMT
Lines: 23
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
X400-Originator: MHSnews.distribution@uninett.no
Content-Identifier: 663647
In-Reply-To: <1991Mar14.095445.16312@ugle.unit.no>
Autoforwarded: TRUE
X400-Received: by mta pilot.cs.wisc.edu in /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed;
               Fri, 15 Mar 1991 09:16:18 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=uninett/ADMD= /C=no/; Relayed;
               Fri, 15 Mar 1991 09:15:50 +0000
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Conversion: Prohibited
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=uninett/ADMD= /C=no/;910315161550]

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no>
>
> Jacob, please tell us it isn't so, and that the O attribute should still
> be placed closest to the most significant OU, like before!
> If your quote is the full and complete truth, there will be NO software
> capable of deciding whether an address is input in "ISO/CCITT order"
> or the currently used "complete little-endian" format.

I am not sure. I did not participate in that subgroup.

Probably the only possible way to avoid confusion between
the OU-s, if a big-endian format is chosen (as the group did,
I believe) is to number them, OU1=, OU2= etc.

I would prefer the presently de-facto accepted
little-endian format, mainly because it avoids confusion of
the OU-s.

I suggest that you talk to Knut Smaaland, the Norwegian
representative at the meeting, and submit a paper through
him with your concerns for the next meeting. Nothing is
finite yet! But the earlier your comments arrive, the
larger chance that they will influence the final result.