Re: URCs and IAFA templates Wed, 19 October 1994 08:08 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00444; 19 Oct 94 4:08 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00440; 19 Oct 94 4:08 EDT
Received: from [] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01507; 19 Oct 94 4:08 EDT
Received: by (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA09139 on Wed, 19 Oct 94 03:26:43 -0400
Received: from kona.CC.McGill.CA by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA09134 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Wed, 19 Oct 94 03:26:39 -0400
Received: from ( []) by kona.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.8/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA14667 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 03:26:37 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Received: from by id <> (8.6.9/ for with SMTP; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:14 +0100
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.9/8.6.x-cf revision 8 for Solaris 2.x) with ESMTP id HAA06130; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 07:25:14 GMT
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.6.4/8.6.4-cf revision 7 for SunOS 4.1.x) with SMTP id IAA02069; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:10 +0100
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: (Unverified)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:11 +0100
Subject: Re: URCs and IAFA templates

I too am confused about the differences between the URCs and IAFA templates
etc. I understood (from asking folk at past IETFs) that the work of the
"non-existant data-elements working group" fed in to the IAFA doc, and I
had assumed that the URC work would be based on that. I also assumed that
WHOIS++ would serve iafa-style templates. There does seem to have been some
divergence in detail (for example I believe the WHOIS++ continuation
character is a "+" whilst in IAFA templates it is white space).

Is the divergence necessary? Is it possible to align them whilst they are
still drafts?

I've just discovered that I dropped off the IAFA mailing list around the
turn of the year. I have some comments on the latest draft which I'll mail
to the iafa list.

-- Jill