RE: Naming/Format conventions for INDEX files

["George D. Greenwade" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:20:38 +0200, Markus Stumpf
<[e-mail]> posted:
> In Germany we plan to standardize (sp?) the format and naming of ftp-server
> index files! This is a sensitive area as it should support all OS
> platforms.                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After seeing the drafts and looking through the archives, a good question
is if the intent here is to only "support all" OS platforms which are Unix
or "support all" platforms.  Many things I have seen, I would love to
see someone do under VAX/VMS (which remains a footnote for a to-do, from
everything I can tell).  Indeed, draft.part.I and draft.part.II, the two
drafts, cannot be retained under VMS without somehow bastardizing the names
-- moreover, MGET via ftp is impossible!

> Currently we are discussing a format, which could easily be generated by
> GNU find, which runs (and is designed to run) on a wide variety of
> platforms!
> 
> The current format looks like (comments welcome)
>      512        1991-02-25 19:50        /pub/BSD/4.3-tcpip/
>   447001        1991-02-06 14:10        /pub/BSD/4.3-tcpip/bind-4.8.3.Z
>       31        1992-07-18 15:59        /pub/BSD/386BSD/0.1 -> ../../..
>                                                    /public2/BSD/386BSD/0.1

I'd vote for the VMS format dir/col=1/nohead/wid=(file=45)/size/date:

MX_ROOT:[MLF]00README.TXT;1                        13   6-SEP-1991 08:09:54.96
MX_ROOT:[MLF]BNB.P;1                                6  29-JUL-1991 16:49:02.68
MX_ROOT:[MLF]BTOA.ZIP;3                            38  25-MAR-1991 15:28:13.17
MX_ROOT:[MLF]DIR.LST;2                            285  17-SEP-1991 11:46:58.90
MX_ROOT:[MLF]DNS.1;1                                3   3-JUN-1991 07:49:13.01
MX_ROOT:[MLF]DNS.2;1                                3   3-JUN-1991 07:49:32.11
MX_ROOT:[MLF]EQTAG.MTY;1                            6  10-DEC-1991 14:18:15.17
MX_ROOT:[MLF]EXPEND.ASC;1                         308   8-JUN-1992 12:32:30.18
MX_ROOT:[MLF]FILESERV-91-12.ZIP;1                 110   8-JUN-1992 08:08:19.76
MX_ROOT:[MLF]FILESERV-92-01.ZIP;1                 111   8-JUN-1992 08:10:05.20
MX_ROOT:[MLF]FILESERV-92-02.ZIP;1                 161   8-JUN-1992 08:11:36.89
MX_ROOT:[MLF]FILESERV-92-03.ZIP;1                 162   8-JUN-1992 08:14:14.12
MX_ROOT:[MLF]FILESERV-92-04.ZIP;1                 146   8-JUN-1992 08:17:56.70
MX_ROOT:[MLF]FILESERV-92-05.ZIP;1                 159   8-JUN-1992 08:20:19.52
MX_ROOT:[MLF]FILESERV-92-06.ZIP;1                 269   1-JUL-1992 07:22:31.87
MX_ROOT:[MLF]FILESERV.1991-10_Z;1                 404  27-NOV-1991 12:20:00.78

The format is:
disk:[directory]filename.extension;revision     blocks date        time
                                  (1 block = 512 bytes)

> Now the questions:
> - Do you think this format can be supported on all platforms?

Show me how and I'll consider it.

> I think this is a topic that should be included to IAFA, as the earlier we
> standardize the format, the less difficulties we'll hopefully have to get
> the people to using this format!

The earlier you think about something other than Unix, the better!  Right
now, worrying about format is trivial -- worrying about the interface
between OS'es (rather than flavors of the same OS) is what needs to be
looked at.  To me, this is not trivial as I will very soon be working on
the administrative team for parallel Unix and VMS AFA hosts out of the same
site -- which I would like to see somewhat parallel.  The IAFA, at least in
title, gives me hope; in practice, though, I am in despair.

One of my very serious concerns is the listing of all special characters in
the drafts -- notice that one highly special character (at least to VMS) is
omitted -- the period (.).  We *have* to have one and only one in any
filename -- period (no pun intended).  Every concern I see listed is
Unix-related.  If that's the intent, fine; however, I propose that the IAFA
be redesignated the IUAFA -- quit the parody of being "the" Internet AFA
working group and admit that it's the Internet "Unix" AFA working group. 
If that is not the intent, please consider one of the other major players
in AFA before merrily moving along -- right now, there are enough
difficulties in what exists.  If November is really the target date for an
RFC submission, there's an awful lot to do for a true IAFA; for an IUAFA,
it appears just about done.

Regards,   George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
George D. Greenwade, Ph.D.                            Bitnet:  BED_GDG@SHSU
Department of Economics and Business Analysis         THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG
College of Business Administration                    Voice: [phone]
P. O. Box 2118                                        FAX:   [phone]
Sam Houston State University              Internet:        [e-mail]
Huntsville, TX 77341                      [e-mail]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%