comments on the "publishing-draft"

Markus Stumpf <> Fri, 29 October 1993 04:33 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29583; 29 Oct 93 0:33 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29579; 29 Oct 93 0:33 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02584; 29 Oct 93 0:33 EDT
Received: by (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA07136 on Thu, 28 Oct 93 22:43:55 -0400
Received: from by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA07128 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Thu, 28 Oct 93 22:43:23 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id <57804>; Fri, 29 Oct 1993 03:43:10 +0100
Received: by id <311357>; Fri, 29 Oct 1993 03:42:46 +0100
Subject: comments on the "publishing-draft"
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Markus Stumpf <>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 03:42:39 +0100
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL6]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3787
Message-Id: <>

I hope I am not too late with my comments.

Section 2.1.3 and 3.6.3:
It is not clear to me, whether I am allowed to use these tags in any
template file (which would make sense for a URI, but for "City"??).

Section 2.3.2 and 3.8.4
In the first section URIs are mentioned in the latter one they are missing
at all. (Same for the templates-draft).

How do I correctly specify handles?
Does the Handle in the USER template have to match the Handle in the
e.g. DOCUMENT template? Isn't this a bit of a hard thing to do for a
user to find all USER template files, scan them for Handles just to
find the one that matches the one in the document template to get
a contact for this document? How about if I have a user handle for the
author of a piece of software in a software template. The template
for the software is distributed along with the software.
Should the user handle be distributed also?
Who guarantees that two user templates on the same e.g. FTP Server don't
use the same Handle? How about out of date user templates?
Wouldn't it be easier - if the handle approach is used - to specify
e.g. a URL to a user template. This would probably be much easier to
maintain and keep up to date.

Section 3.8.4:
the description of the templates for the AFA-OBJECT:
o  I cannot find a "Abstract" tag, but there ist one in Example 1 & 2.
   This should read Description, right?
o  Couldn't we take the Access-Protocol-v*, Access-Host-Name-v*,
   Access-Host-Port-v*, Pathname-v* and make a URL-v* out of it?
     I don't see why Pathname-v* shouldn't be required with naming
   scheme 2?
     Why is Format-v* the _Formats_ in which the object is available
   and not the _Format_. Shouldn't there be a seperate *-v* entry for each
   Format/Character-Set/Revision-Date/etc. ??
     Title tag: I'd like to propose to keep this a one liner, which could
   be used to generate such little neat 00index.txt files you can find
   in a lot of msdos archives (this may bot be applicable for DOCUMENT
     What is the Source tag used for? Shouldn't we assign a specific
   URL-v* or Access-*-v*, however, to a place where usually the
   newest copy of the data is to be found (maybe reserve -v0 for this?)
     I am still missing a way to specify that the data has been made
   available via USENET News. USENET News have volume/issue and archive-name
   information (at least the moderated sources groups).
   Couldn't we include this? I have locally used the following:

X-Posting-Id: v13i013 - xsokoban2/part01, 10 Jan 1992,
       v13i014 - xsokoban2/part02, 10 Jan 1992,
       v13i015 - xsokoban2/part03, 10 Jan 1992

   this is:
     newsgroup[,newsgroup]": v"volume:2issue:3" - "archive-name", "post-date
   As we are automatically archiving these packages in compressed tar
   files this information is essential to find packages given a volume/issue
   or archive-name information. I would also like propose that these
   entries never get deleted, even if they are old. This would allow users
   to find newer version even though he has a old reference.

That's for now ... more later :-)

I will push the folks here to start converting our AFA files - which are
still in draftII format - to the new format, as soon the above topics are
discussed. We currently have about 730 AFA files (currently ending in
Most of them are searchable with via
However, the information is not completely uptodate, as we have restructured
our archive.

Good night
 Markus Stumpf                        Markus.Stumpf@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE