Re: Identification confusion continues

[Ed Gerck <egerck@xxxxxxx>]

Stephen Kent wrote:

> 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.

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