# Re: URCs and IAFA templates

Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk
Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:25:11 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk: "Re: URCs and IAFA templates"
- Previous message: Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@xerox.com: ""Why isn't IETF using FPIs?""
- Maybe in reply to: Sally Hambridge: "URCs and IAFA templates"
- Next in thread: Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk: "Re: URCs and IAFA templates"

    From: Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk

    Message-Id: <199410190725.IAA02069@tuda.ncl.ac.uk>

    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

- Next message: Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk: "Re: URCs and IAFA templates"
- Previous message: Steve_Strasen.ES_AE@xerox.com: ""Why isn't IETF using FPIs?""
- Maybe in reply to: Sally Hambridge: "URCs and IAFA templates"
- Next in thread: Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk: "Re: URCs and IAFA templates"