🚀 go-pugleaf

I understand that the CCIT folk are meeting this week in Ottowa, but I
weonder if anyone has an electronic copy of the actual text that was
adopted in March.

If not, then can someone please provide a copy of the real adopted
text coming out of the Ottowa meeting?

Thanks...\Stef

----- Begin

From: Jacob Palme QZ <JPALME@qz.qz.se>
Subject: O/R name component ordering (was: Report from X.400 development
X400-Originator: MHSnews.distribution@uninett.no
Message-ID: <663647*@MHS>
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Date: 15 Mar 91 15:17:27 GMT
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=uninett/ADMD= /C=no/;910315161550]
To:       mhsnews@qz.qz.se

> 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.

---- End