RE: Identification confusion continues

[Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>]

At 8:13 AM +0100 2/14/00, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> 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

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