Re: new iafa draft

R M Heery <> Wed, 10 January 1996 15:34 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09966; 10 Jan 96 10:34 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09962; 10 Jan 96 10:34 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07983; 10 Jan 96 10:34 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAA11340 for iafa-out; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 10:31:27 -0500
Received: from (mocha.Bunyip.Com []) by (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA11335 for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 10:31:17 -0500
Received: from by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA26793 (mail destined for; Wed, 10 Jan 96 10:31:06 -0500
Received: from (actually host by with SMTP (PP); Wed, 10 Jan 1996 14:43:35 +0000
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 14:43:25 +0000 (GMT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: R M Heery <>
To: Thomas Krichel <>
Subject: Re: new iafa draft
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 9 Jan 1996, Thomas Krichel wrote:

>   Since I collect the templates to use the whois++ protocol
>   to transport my database, I am more interested in being whois++
>   compliant, since that is what the software requires. However

I think the whole issue of how the original IAFA template relates to
whois++ templates needs airing.... We are basing our work in ROADS on 
IAFA templates, and hoping to make changes to them as the implementation 
requires. Whereas the work on White Pages implementations seems to be 
going forward with 'whois++ templates' which are as ye undocumented.

Rachel Heery
ROADS Research Officer                   
UKOLN (UK Office of Library and Info Networking)   tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK               fax: +44 (0)1225 826838