Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 13:45:31 -700 (PST)
From: Mitra <mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Subject: URC document
To: uri@bunyip.com
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9407091359.A25518-0100000@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Thanks for a (generally) great document Michael,
As a process, I suggest keeping this document intact, but progressing
several smaller documents as the RFCs - Specifically I'd suggest
excluding the description of specific tags/values from the first copy of
the document so that we can agree on encoding first. I'd also suggest
making hte whois++ stuff a seperate document, and throwing out section
4.1 (future stuff) entirely :-)
The only comment on the encoding is to strongly support the Precedences
idea. (Since I think I was the one to propose it, this should suprise
noone :-) It keeps things simple for simple URC's. I'd like to see a way
of specifying complex precedence while recognising that in most URCs it
wont be required - something like Braces would be a simple way of doing
this, and most URC maintainers (the non computer-science literate example
of MM's paper) would never see them.
I'd also like to see us support multi-valued values, Author is the
obvious example of this.
Now - on the non encoding side of the document.
Author should include the email address, as in the "From:" field of
RFC822, e.g.
Author: Mitra <mitra@path.net>
TTL is lousy - it makes a URC dependant on the time it was created,
Expires is a much better way of doing this, specify the specific time to
throw it out. I also fail to understand the problem people are hving
with understanding what it applies to, since this is covered by the
precedence rules (I think - but maybe I'm missing something).
Thanks again Michael.
- Mitra