Re: URCs and IAFA templates
Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk Wed, 19 October 1994 08:08 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us 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 [192.197.208.1] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01507; 19 Oct 94 4:08 EDT
Received: by mocha.bunyip.com (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 mocha.bunyip.com 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 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 DAA14667 for <iafa@cc.mcgill.ca>; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 03:26:37 -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 <IAA10322@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk> (8.6.9/ for ncl.ac.uk) with SMTP; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:14 +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 HAA06130; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 07:25:14 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 IAA02069; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:10 +0100
Message-Id: <199410190725.IAA02069@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 08:25:11 +0100
To: iafa@cc.mcgill.ca, uri@bunyip.com
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
- URCs and IAFA templates Sally Hambridge
- Re: URCs and IAFA templates Martijn Koster
- Re: URCs and IAFA templates Martijn Koster
- Re: URCs and IAFA templates Alan Emtage
- Re: URCs and IAFA templates Jill.Foster