Re: Yet another version of the draft

Martijn Koster <> Wed, 19 October 1994 11:13 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01215; 19 Oct 94 7:13 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01211; 19 Oct 94 7:13 EDT
Received: from mocha.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03722; 19 Oct 94 7:13 EDT
Received: by (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA09268 on Wed, 19 Oct 94 05:18:59 -0400
Received: from sifon.CC.McGill.CA by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA09264 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Wed, 19 Oct 94 05:18:57 -0400
Received: from ( []) by sifon.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id FAA07993 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 05:18:06 -0400
Message-Id: <199410190918.FAA07993@sifon.CC.McGill.CA>
Received: from (actually host by with SMTP (PP); Wed, 19 Oct 1994 10:15:13 +0100
Subject: Re: Yet another version of the draft
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Oct 1994 09:29:33 BST." <>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 10:15:01 +0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Martijn Koster <>

> 1. [...]
> 2. [...]
> 4. [...]


> 3.       You changed the wording below to acommodate the word "Details"
> which I think should have been "Date" in the first place. ie - Date record
> was last maintained.

Hmm, I wanted to indicate it's not just the date, but also contact

How about "Details describing when the record was last maintained,
and by whom" ?

> Hope this helps :-)

Yup, Thanks; all comments more than welcome.

[no sooner had I said this and even more comments arrived :-) ]

> I've just discovered that I'd somehow been dropped off the iafa mailing
> list around the start of the year 

Bummer. I wondered where all the original crowd had gone.

> and that there had been some revisions of the internet draft since
> then. (Only some of which had been announced - and therefore I'd
> seen.)

We wanted to at least agree on the list before fixing a new revision.

> Having said that - registration of template types poses other problems.

I agree that registration is an issue, and probably required. But as
it is a hairy subject I wonder if we can address it in a separate

> o       I agree that there needs to be a way to insert comments. This is
> for several reasons:


> o       A few of the typos:

All fixed.

> o       3.3 item 7) Blank is defined as octal 40 - fine (that's the way I
> think of it) but the URI docs etc tend to talk in hex

OK, changed to hex. 

> o       3.3 item 10) I still think "latitude and longitude" is a bit
> pretentious.

Can you elaborate?

> o       3.6.2   Not sure why we need organisation-postal *and*
> organisation-city, -state, -country.

Hmmm. The -{city,state,country} are nice as search constraints for
resources, we do need those. At the same time you may want to display
"Contact $postal" and be done with it. We can either leave it, or suggest
Postal shouldn't include city, state, or country. Any thoughts?

> o       Examples:
>         Sally suggested that names be "Lastname, first names". If this is
> agreed - the examples would need changing.

Has anyone else got any strong desires/arguments either way?
I personally always think it looks silly, and am not convinced
sorting is always important.

> That's it for now. Nice work Martijn, Alan and Markus.

Thanks for the comments, keep them comming.

-- Martijn
X-400: C=GB; A= ; P=Nexor; O=Nexor; S=koster; I=M
X-500: c=GB@o=NEXOR Ltd@cn=Martijn Koster