Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!hc!lll-winken!lll-tis!NRTC.NORTHROP.COM!Stef
From: Stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: Blanks and Semicolons (DRAFT/2)
Message-ID: <1743.590340241@nma.com>
Date: 15 Sep 88 01:24:01 GMT
References: <1616:grimm@darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de>
Sender: root@tis.llnl.gov
Reply-To: Stef@nrtc.northrop.com
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov

Hello Ruediger -- I don't quite follow all the turns in your last
paragraph.  

> ...
> Anyway the argument of having it understandable by software is still
> a strong one. Therefore I don't see a better compromise than the
> DRAFT/2 of the suggested recommendation. It is also a quite natural one,
> which will not make "mappings" necessary. It is very very close to RFC987,
> and the differences are both well considered and not confusing.

We agree that use in software is a strong argument.

But then, how is DRAFT/2 which is not useable in UNIX a good compromise?

Can you list the specific differences between DRAFT/2 and RFC987?  
As I recall, "Very Very Close" only counts in three games:

           Horseshoes, Grenades, and Atomic Bombs ...   

Are we now saying that a little ambiguity is fine in ORAddresses?

Cheers...\Stef