Comments on latest IAFA draft
Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk Wed, 19 October 1994 09:17 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00688; 19 Oct 94 5:17 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00684; 19 Oct 94 5:17 EDT
Received: from mocha.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02346; 19 Oct 94 5:17 EDT
Received: by mocha.bunyip.com (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA09155 on Wed, 19 Oct 94 03:26:58 -0400
Received: from kona.CC.McGill.CA by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA09145 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Wed, 19 Oct 94 03:26:44 -0400
Received: from cheviot.ncl.ac.uk (cheviot.ncl.ac.uk [128.240.2.10]) by kona.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.8/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA14670 for <iafa@cc.mcgill.ca>; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 03:26:42 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk
Received: from burnmoor.ncl.ac.uk by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id <IAA10326@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk> (8.6.9/ for ncl.ac.uk) with SMTP; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:26 +0100
Received: from tuda.ncl.ac.uk (tuda.ncl.ac.uk [128.240.2.1]) by burnmoor.ncl.ac.uk (8.6.9/8.6.x-cf revision 8 for Solaris 2.x) with ESMTP id HAA06136; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 07:25:24 GMT
Received: from [128.240.3.40] (dash.ncl.ac.uk [128.240.3.40]) by tuda.ncl.ac.uk (8.6.4/8.6.4-cf revision 7 for SunOS 4.1.x) with SMTP id IAA02071; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:12 +0100
Message-Id: <199410190725.IAA02071@tuda.ncl.ac.uk>
X-Sender: njf@popin.ncl.ac.uk (Unverified)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:22 +0100
To: iafa@cc.mcgill.ca
Subject: Comments on latest IAFA draft
Cc: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu, clw@bunyip.com
Hi! I've just discovered that I'd somehow been dropped off the iafa mailing list around the start of the year - 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.) Having caught up with the old iafa mail (nearly 2Mbytes as it's one monolithic file) and read the latest drafts (Sept.) - I have a few comments, but first a general note. Template "designers" are supposed to pick and choose from the attributes listed in the iafa docs. Some attempt has been made to include examples of "Service Templates" etc. There has been no suggestion about registering template types. Is this something that should be considered? I can imagine lots of different templates being produced for different objects: network training materials, NIR tools, NIR groups (those three have already been done), NICs, etc etc. Perhaps it doesn't matter - but I'm just worried that this might get into the same mess as with the X.500 schema - where there were different schema for K-12 folk than for, say, NIC personnel. This meant that a different set of info was kept for different "resources" - which made searching by attribute across groups difficult. (Does that make sense? ) Having said that - registration of template types poses other problems. Comments on the Sept. IAFA draft: o I agree that there needs to be a way to insert comments. This is for several reasons: - to make the template more readable for the person completing it (who may not be completing it via a forms interface). (In the examples in the iafa doc - blank lines are added to improve readability.) - to enable template "designers" to include notes on how to complete the template - to allow template/index maintainers to include reminders to themselves o A few of the typos: - 2.1 "...... and should be used *in* preference to the complete entry."".... to ensure *uniqueness*..." - 2.2.1 - Name of organisation .... under *whose* authority.... - 2.2.3 *Date* record was last maintained - 2.4.1 The service can offer an overall description of each *of* the various Internet services...... - 3.1 "+1 (514) 555 1212" Note that later in the doc. the format without brackets is specified for phone numbers. 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 o 3.3 item 10) I still think "latitude and longitude" is a bit pretentious. o 3.6.2 Not sure why we need organisation-postal *and* organisation-city, -state, -country. o Examples: Sally suggested that names be "Lastname, first names". If this is agreed - the examples would need changing. That's it for now. Nice work Martijn, Alan and Markus. -- Jill
- Comments on latest IAFA draft Jill.Foster