From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)mordor(_dot_)stanford(_dot_)edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 94 15:07:35 -0700
My comment about short-vs-long was perhaps too simplistic. The
attribute/value sequencing model also seems to carry specification
complexity (notational complexity) that is a pain for users. The DNS
syntax is simpler in ways that seem to have better human factors
characteristics.
It should also be noted that short does not necessarily mean "does not
scale". For example, there is one addressing scheme which people are
very well accustomed too already, which does scale to the whole world
and which is yet short (fits on a business card). What is this
addressing scheme? Why, a telephone number: 1 617 253 8091.
A telephone number is not descriptive, but then again, how descriptive
is "tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu"? Both are, however, short, and easy to use even
if
you have a very simple UI. You don't need a fancy, "well-designed" GUI
in order to use them.
Most importantly, simply because one particular short name address
scheme --- alphabetic short email address --- will not scale, that is by
itself not a reason to use long, complicated Distinguished Names.
Personally, my best guess about what will happen is that most newcomers
on the Internet will get names like
73617(_dot_)3727(_at_)compuserve(_dot_)com(_dot_) I doubt
that the Internet will be junking SMTP mail in favor of X.400 mail
simply because newer users won't be able to get names like
"tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu" or "kent(_at_)bbn(_dot_)com"!
- Ted