Re: multipart objects - directories
Markus Stumpf <stumpf@informatik.tu-muenchen.de> Fri, 20 May 1994 00:34 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14469;
19 May 94 20:34 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14465;
19 May 94 20:34 EDT
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22773;
19 May 94 20:34 EDT
Received: by mocha.bunyip.com (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
id AA29970 on Thu, 19 May 94 18:50:49 -0400
Received: from sifon.CC.McGill.CA by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP
(5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
id AA29962 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request
iafa-out) on Thu, 19 May 94 18:50:27 -0400
Received: from tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
(root@tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.81]) by
sifon.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA00431 for
<iafa@cc.mcgill.ca>; Thu, 19 May 1994 18:50:24 -0400
Received: from hprbg5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ([131.159.0.200])
by tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
with SMTP id <326476>; Fri, 20 May 1994 00:50:12 +0200
Received: by hprbg5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de id <311418>;
Fri, 20 May 1994 00:49:57 +0100
Subject: Re: multipart objects - directories
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Markus Stumpf <stumpf@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
To: Alan Emtage <bajan@bunyip.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 01:49:54 +0200
Cc: iafa@cc.mcgill.ca
In-Reply-To: <9405080028.AA06313@mocha.bunyip.com> from "Alan Emtage" at May 8,
94 02:28:48 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 5038
Message-Id: <94May20.004957mesz.311418@hprbg5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
I wrote:
|>>Some "Template-Type: SOFTWARE" e.g. comes in more than one part, like e.g.
|>> some.gz.aa
|>> some.gz.ab
|>> some.gz.ac
|>> [ ... ]
|>>How would you describe this with the methods given in the current draft?
|>>One template for each of the parts? This is kinda ugly and hard to maintain.
|>>But I couldn't find any provisions for such multipart objects.
Alain said:
|>Hmmm. I certainly don't think that there should be a template for each one
|>of these things. That's going to be a nightmare to compse and maintain. In
|>addition, the fact that someone may split something up (to get it through
|>mail or USENET for example) has little or no bearing on this. How about we
|>solve this problem with just putting a wildcard (say "*") at the end of the
|>"Pathname" and so for the above you'd say Pathname: /<blah>/some.gz.* or
|>/<blah>/some.gz.a[a-c].
Splitting up was just an example. How about having diff/patch files?
Then the '*' solution might become difficult. And it would become more
complicated to use the information on a remote site to e.g. construct
URLs as the directory information might not be available and URLs
don't allow wildcards.
|>>The other problem is with providing information about directories.
|>>Assume a directory named /pub/comp/security. The directory should contain
|>>security related information regarding the computer area.
|>>IMHO it would be useful to have a AFA-OBJECT called DIRECTORY to describe
|>>the contents of a directory.
|>That's a good idea... I suppose that this would be most related to the
|>current "DOCUMENT" type? Would you like to suggest the the elements you'd
|>like to see in there?
Fields relevant to directories:
Template-Type: See above list
Title: Title of the object
Admin-(USER*): Description/contact information about the
administrators/maintainers of the object.
These fields may be repeated as often as
is necessary.
Record-Last-Modified-(USER*):
Contact information about person last
modifying this record
Record-Last-Modified-Date:
The date the last time this record was
modified
Record-Last-Verified-(USER*):
Contact information of person or group
last verifying that this record was
accurate
Record-Last-Verified-Date:
The date the last time this record was
verified
Description: Description (that is, "abstract" in the
case of documents) of the object.
Copyright: The copyright statement. Any additional
information on the copying policy may be
included
Keywords: Appropriate keywords for this object
Access-Protocol-v*: Method of access to this object (eg,
anonymous FTP, Gopher etc.) as well as
the host on which it resides. Also any
additional information needed to access
the object.
Access-Host-Name-v*: Host on which to access the object
Access-Host-Port-v*: Port on which to access the object. This
may be implied by the Access-Protocol and
so not be necessary
Pathname-v*: The full pathname of this object. This is
operating system specific. This is not
required if naming scheme 2 is used
Template-Type: DIRECTORY
Title: some movies encoded in MPEG format
Admin-Handle: http://some.host/~user/
Pathname-v0: /pub/rec/movies/mpegs/
Access-Method-v0: Anonymous FTP
Access-Host-Name-v0: cinema.virtuale.org
Although I did use the Pathname, Access-Method, Access-Host-Name
fields I am rather unhappy that there is no "URL-v*" field for
methods that are currently supported by the URI/URL drafts.
This would make handling such entries IMHO much easier.
|>list. A few people have written, mainly typos and formatting corrections
|>rather than anything else. I guess that means that the document is perfect
|>:-)
*grmbl*
just had a quick look at "draft-ietf-iafa-publishing-01.txt" and most
of the typos and formatting problems I'd sent in are still there,
and none of the proposals I'd made are in :((
\Maex
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Markus Stumpf Markus.Stumpf@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE
http://www.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~stumpf/
- multipart objects - directories Markus Stumpf
- Re: multipart objects - directories Alan Emtage
- Re: multipart objects - directories Markus Stumpf
- Re: multipart objects - directories Martijn Koster
- Re: multipart objects - directories Alan Emtage
- Draft progression Martijn Koster