Re: whois++ response formats...
Martin Hamilton <M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk> Wed, 15 September 1993 15:44 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06646; 15 Sep 93 11:44 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06640; 15 Sep 93 11:44 EDT
Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29254; 15 Sep 93 11:44 EDT
Received: by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA19886; Wed, 15 Sep 93 08:21:03 PDT
Received: from avarice.lut.ac.uk by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA19602; Wed, 15 Sep 93 08:13:42 PDT
Received: from genie.lut.ac.uk by avarice.lut.ac.uk id <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Wed, 15 Sep 1993 16:19:55 +0100
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 16:14:23 +0100
From: Martin Hamilton <M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: whois++ response formats...
To: Rickard Schoultz <email@example.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Rickard Shoultz said: > Martin, > I think your set of responses are as good as any. My opinion is that > we need a BNF (Peter?) for the FULL response, and use that to form the > responses from system commands. > > If we start out with: [...] Sounds great to me. PS How about "version" for the version handle ? PPS Anybody given any thought to the possibility of there being (say) USER templates mk II, III, IV... etc ? Perhaps templates should have version numbers too?!? :-) -- in which case the "version" template could be pressed into service to track the template versions, e.g. template=VERSION;handle=USER Just a thought Martin