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
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-wnils-request@ucdavis.edu
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 <05552-0@avarice.lut.ac.uk>; 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 <M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: whois++ response formats...
To: Rickard Schoultz <schoultz@admin.kth.se>
Cc: ietf-wnils@ucdavis.edu
In-Reply-To: <9309151448.AA23099@othello.admin.kth.se>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9309151608.G4064-a100000@avarice>
Mime-Version: 1.0
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