Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050403111029.02f60c10@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:15:45 +0200
To: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>,
	"'Doug Ewell'" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Registry in record-jar format
In-Reply-To: <200504030855.j338tOLO011572@smtp-los02.proxy.aol.com>
References: <012201c537ec$c793f820$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<200504030855.j338tOLO011572@smtp-los02.proxy.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 10:55 03/04/2005, Debbie Garside wrote:
>Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> >That adds new fields "Deprecated," "Name_Changed," and "Former_Value,"
> >which aren't mentioned anywhere in the draft, and which constitute more of
> >a change than converting from vertical-bar-delimited to record-jar in the
> >first place.
>
>IMHO, these fields should be included... I am including something similar in
>-6.  I am also including a date field for "last updated"

Great. Will it be by the date of by the year?

I would suggest that updates are carried by January 1st as for UDC (with 
the hope of a generalization) when to the day. The reason why is that it 
permits to cover the entire History (-32.000/+32.000) with two bytes. 
Otherwise Unix like dates will be used, what will cause much more troubles. 
I feel from experience that one full year incertitude is - one way or 
another - the degree of error we can expect in real life (and it is widely 
covered by the current practices of 5, 10 or 50 years delays).

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru