This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++
- Previous message (by thread): Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++
- Next message (by thread): Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marten Terpstra
Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net
Thu Jul 21 16:45:06 CEST 1994
Laurent Joncheray <lpj at merit.edu> writes * Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they * went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not * allow more than 1 update of an object per day. * in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax * (compatible with the older one): * * changed: <email> YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] * * If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? * +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the times * zones :-) This is not for us to decide. The database working group should decide on this. However, your statement that the document only allows one update per day is wrong. The current database can take as many updates per day for one object as you like. Implementation matter. -Marten
- Previous message (by thread): Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++
- Next message (by thread): Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]