Re: Yet another version of the draft

Jill Foster <> Mon, 24 October 1994 13:28 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02000; 24 Oct 94 9:28 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01996; 24 Oct 94 9:28 EDT
Received: from mocha.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05712; 24 Oct 94 9:28 EDT
Received: by (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA03729 on Mon, 24 Oct 94 09:03:44 -0400
Received: from sifon.CC.McGill.CA by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA03725 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Mon, 24 Oct 94 09:03:32 -0400
Received: from ( []) by sifon.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA01265 for <>; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 09:02:40 -0400
Received: from by id <> (8.6.9/ for with SMTP; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 13:02:49 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.9/8.6.x-cf revision 8 for Solaris 2.x) with ESMTP id NAA03114; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 13:02:48 GMT
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.6.4/8.6.4-cf revision 7 for SunOS 4.1.x) with SMTP id NAA01853; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 13:02:45 GMT
Message-Id: <aad14eeb21021004c764@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 13:02:41 +0100
To: Martijn Koster <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jill Foster <>
Subject: Re: Yet another version of the draft

At 10:15 am 19/10/94, Martijn Koster wrote:
>> 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" ?

OK. In the Trainmat template, we have:


(I guess you'd see the last two as part of a "person" cluster.)


>> 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

Not sure. We (someone ie WG chair?) just needs to remain aware that this
needs addressing somewhere.

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

I can't see the real use of it when "country" etc is included. That's all.
It's history now I guess. No real problem.

>> 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?

It needs to be clarified in the notes. Agree it is good to be able to sort
on Country. (State is fairly US specific.)

OK. Fine -  keep them all as optional attributes. The person responsible
for the template type would choose whether or not to include postal *and*
say Country - but then should indicate whether or not Country should be
included in postal too -( e.g.  if they wished to keep this field

Hope that makes sense.

-- Jill