RE: dnQualifier has a bright future?

[Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Oops James,
My wording was a little bit reversed.  (-: Of course I understood that Tom meant
that the ITU-conformant definition could better be named DSAInstance.

Regarding dnQualifier I though believe it should keep both name and OID
but get a new wording that is in line with its current (incorrect) use in pretty many
places as indicated by others.  

Anders

----------
From:  Manger, James H [SMTP:James.H.Manger@corpmail.telstra.com.au]
Sent:  Wednesday, February 16, 2000 09:13
To:  'Anders Rundgren'
Subject:  RE: dnQualifier has a bright future?

Tom did not suggest creating DSAInstance as a replacement for DNQualifier,
he said DSAInstance might have been a better choice of name for the
DNQualifier attribute.

DNDisambiguator would be a better name than DNQualifier for qualities you
want.


> ..it was in QC for 12 months!!..
It has been in X.520 for 12 years (and QC is still a draft).