"the" plan

  > epg at merit.edu writes:
  > Daniel,
  > 
  > > 
  > > Perfect.
  > > 
  > > We should find a mechanism for incremental updates too, like just forward
  > ing
  > > the update messages with a special kludge to prevent multiple 
  > > diagnostic replies.
  > 
  > Good idea - we have discussed this but have no solution right now.

Our thinking is:

alternative a)

	At the point in the update procedure where an update is found to 
        be without errors, send the update as an email message to 
        a special mailbox which just includes it without checking and
	producing diagnostic mails.

alternative b)

	do the same with a TCP connection rather than mail.
	needs spooling built in in case the other side is down.

  > My statement was not completely accurate. We are interested in exploring
  > the whois daemon that queries multiple places, but what Laurent is
  > working on as an intermediary step is a whois daemon that understands
  > both the original RIPE-81 syntax and the Merit syntax.

Fine. But see my message about the extensions.

  > > Fine. No jont announcement then. I don't mind.
  > 
  > Guess I thought that it would still be a joint announcement since
  > we'd like the message to go from both of us - RIPE and Merit.

Misunderstanding. See my later tesponse to your later mesage.

  > 
  > How come everything seems to happen right before IETF???

Fundamental Internet Law.



-------- Logged at  Wed Mar 23 05:35:14 MET 1994  ---------