home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!ugle.unit.no!boheme.er.sintef.no!hta
- From: hta@boheme.er.sintef.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand)
- Subject: Re: Uniqueness of X.400 address
- Message-ID: <1992Nov10.081527.22203@ugle.unit.no>
- Sender: news@ugle.unit.no (NetNews Administrator)
- Reply-To: harald.alvestrand@delab.sintef.no
- Organization: SINTEF DELAB, Norway
- References: <1992Nov7.161253.9388@iti.gov.sg> <1992Nov9.235405.27196@philips.oz.au>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 08:15:27 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- There are 2 solutions in the X.400/88 standard to the character set problem
- in O/R names.
-
- 1) Allow TeletexStrings in O/R name attributes
- TeletexStrings allow ISO-IR-87, which is a Japanese character set.
- (they probably had a man on the comittee...Greek and Arabic are still out)
- 2) Allow Directory Names instead of O/R names to be used in submission.
- This allows looking up the "real" name from X.500.
-
- (why standardize one solution when you can standardize two :-)
-
- In both cases, you can see the hand of ADMDs trying to protect their
- previous investment: whenever an O/R name is passed across an international
- boundary, it is supposed to have all attributes represented in Printable
- (that is, USASCII without some characters) IN ADDITION TO other forms.
-
- People are thinking now that an address should be for machines, not people.
- I would not like to have to consider Chinese (or Norwegian) characters
- for my routing tables, even though my son's name cannot be written in ASCII.
-
- As for uniqueness, this is a local matter.
- Often, use of OUs will be sufficient.
-
- But I know of an organization where two people with the same name worked in
- the same OU; one of them got an arbitary middle initial.
-
- --
- Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Harald.Alvestrand@delab.sintef.no
- C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=sintef;OU=delab;S=alvestrand;G=harald
- +47 7 59 70 94
-