From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc1685.txt | 619 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 619 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1685.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1685.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1685.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1685.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9e84402 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1685.txt @@ -0,0 +1,619 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group H. Alvestrand +Request for Comments: 1685 UNINETT +RARE Technical Report: 12 August 1994 +Category: Informational + + + Writing X.400 O/R Names + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet Community. It does + not specify an Internet Standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +1. Introduction + + There is a need for human beings who use X.400 systems to be able to + write down O/R names in a uniform way. + + There has been a preexisting recommendation on how to write O/R names + for human consumption in the RARE community. Now that the ISO/ITU has + adopted a recommendation on how to do this [1], RARE needs to update + its recommendation on writing O/R names to take this standard into + account. + +2. Recommendations on writing O/R names + + RARE recommends that the ISO standard be followed when writing O/R + names. The ISO/ITU standard contains a number of options. RARE makes + the following recommendations: + + - The "main" abbreviations, G, I, S, O, OU1, OU2, P, A and C + are used. They should be written using UPPER CASE. + + - The separation character should be semicolon (;). + + - The ADMD value "blank" is expressed by omitting the + attribute. No other interpretation of a missing ADMD + attribute is allowed. + + - The recommended sequence is G=;I=;S=;O=;OU1=;OU2=;P=;A=;C=; + + This means that the O, OU1 and so on will be in opposite order to the + fields of an Internet domain name; the reason for choosing the + ISO/ITU order is that this will be more common among users of X.400 + services. + + + + + +RARE Working Group on Mail and Messaging (WG-MSG) [Page 1] + +RFC 1685 Writing X.400 O/R Names August 1994 + + +3. Copy of the recommmendation + + This is a COPY of a DRAFT of the relevant appendix. For the + authoritative text, consult the ITU standard itself. + + Final text for AMENDMENT, 7 February 1993 + + Annex to CCITT Rec. F.401 and ISO/IEC 10021-2/Am.1 + + Annex F + + Representation of O/R addresses for human usage (This annex does + not form an integral part of this Recommendation|International + Standard) + + F.1 Purpose + + An O/R address (specified in clause 18) consists of a set of + values of attributes taken from the list shown in Table F.1. In + order to represent visually an address to a human user, and to + enable the user to enter the address into a user interface, each + attribute value needs to be associated with the correct attribute + type. Many of the names of the attribute types shown in Table F.1 + are too long for convenient usage on paper or a screen. There is a + need for a format which allows attributes to be represented + concisely, e.g., on a business card. + + This annex specifies how addresses can be expressed concisely + using labels to represent the attribute types. There are three + categories of attributes: those standard mnemonic attributes which + are most likely to be found in O/R addresses represented for human + usage (e.g., on business cards), those used in physical delivery + addresses, and other specialised attributes (including domain + defined attributes). In order to provide a format which is as + concise as possible, many of the labels are single characters. + This also makes them less language dependent. + + Clause F.3 specifies the format for the representation of + addresses, and clause F.4 specifies the characteristics necessary + for user interfaces which are intended to be used in conjunction + with this format. + + F.2 Scope + + A labelled format for the communication of O/R addresses to human + users is specified. The format consists of a set of pairs of + labels and attribute-values. The characteristics of a user + interface which are necessary to accept addresses given in this + + + +RARE Working Group on Mail and Messaging (WG-MSG) [Page 2] + +RFC 1685 Writing X.400 O/R Names August 1994 + + + format are also specified. + + In addition a self-explanatory format suitable for use where there + is more space, e.g., in printed material and in the user + interface, is specified. + + F.3 Format + + F.3.1 General + + The objective of the labelled format is to enable O/R addresses to + be represented in a format which is concise and which can be + accurately transcribed by human users. This can be facilitated by + careful consideration of which attributes and values are used to + form an O/R address. + + If the attributes of an O/R address include characters from an + extended character set, human users who do not normally use the + same extended character set may have difficulty representing the + O/R address or entering it into their messaging system. In this + situation, an alias of the O/R address should be provided which is + composed entirely of printable string characters. + + NOTES + + 1. The policy for structuring O/R addresses needs to be + carefully considered. Individual O/R addresses should be + allocated within an appropriate division of the address + space to reduce to an acceptable level the probability that + 2 users might expect to have the same O/R address. Use of + given name or initials is usually sufficient to distinguish + between users. It may be inappropriate to reflect too much + granularity in OUs particularly if the organizational + structure is subject to frequent change, or users move + between OUs. + + 2. There may be a conflict between the benefits of using long + values for attributes which are self explanatory (such as + the full name of an organisation) and the benefits of + shorter values (e.g., to concisely fit on a business card). + One solution to this problem is to provide an alternative + short attribute value (such as the initials of the + organisation) as an alias for the long value. + + 3. If a human user might be uncertain about the existence of a + space in an attribute value (particularly when it is + typeset), aliases could be provided with and without the + space (e.g., "SNOMAIL400" as an alias for "SNOMAIL 400" and + + + +RARE Working Group on Mail and Messaging (WG-MSG) [Page 3] + +RFC 1685 Writing X.400 O/R Names August 1994 + + + "Mac Donald" as an alias for MacDonald). + + 4. If an alias is provided for an O/R address, it is desirable + that this is implemented in such a way that a consistent + (preferred) form of O/R address is generated for all + messages originated by the user. + + Where national usage permits a single space value for the ADMD in + an address, this is represented in the address either by omitting + the ADMD attribute, or showing the ADMD attribute with no value or + the value of a space. + + F.3.2 Labelled format + + F.3.2.1 Syntax + + O/R addresses in labelled format consist of delimited pairs of + labels and values in the syntax