Subject: RE: Identification confusion continues

From: Anders Rundgren <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:13:01 +0100

Stefan,

>Your way of using serialNumber fits well in the QC definition. We could not
>limit the use of serialNumber to a static identifier based on the past
>discussions.

And your way of assigning multiple semantics to an object without having
any disambiguiting element is a practice that usually renders you a kick in the rear in most places of this industry.
To put such constructs in an international standard-to-be is definitely a step up on the penalty ladder.

/Anders

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:31:42 -0500

At 8:13 AM +0100 2/14/00, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>any disambiguiting element is a practice that usually renders you a 
>kick in the rear in most places of this industry.
>To put such constructs in an international standard-to-be is 
>definitely a step up on the penalty ladder.
>
>/Anders

After extensive debate, folks in the ITU and IETF worlds agreed that 
the syntax of what we needed is best expressed by serialNumbner, not 
DNqualifier, and that a broadening of the definition of the former 
attribute was the best path.  Moreover, we had reports from various 
folks that people in the field had come to the same conclusion and 
were already using serialNumber in this fashion.  So, we are 
legitimizing current practice, and meeting a stated need, without 
introducing a new attribute type.

Steve

---

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:53:59 -0800

> introducing a new attribute type.

I may have missed this information in the draft?  Seems to me that it
at least shows why the seemingly most obscure path was the path of
choice, by calling a serialNumber what is not a "serial number".

BTW, could we know what "people in the field had come to the same
conclusion and were already using serialNumber in this fashion" and
also who were the "various folks" that reported on this?  It might be
useful to get back to both sides and see exactly what is being done
ahead of the standards.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck