Re: whois++ response formats...

Martin Hamilton <> Wed, 15 September 1993 15:44 UTC

Received: from 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 by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29254; 15 Sep 93 11:44 EDT
Received: by (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA19886; Wed, 15 Sep 93 08:21:03 PDT
Received: from by (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA19602; Wed, 15 Sep 93 08:13:42 PDT
Received: from by id <>; Wed, 15 Sep 1993 16:19:55 +0100
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 16:14:23 +0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Martin Hamilton <>
Subject: Re: whois++ response formats...
To: Rickard Schoultz <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9309151608.G4064-a100000@avarice>
Mime-Version: 1.0

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.


Just a thought