Subj : XML
To   : Scott Little
From : Jasen Betts
Date : Tue Dec 31 2002 09:04 am

Hi Scott.

30-Dec-02 04:48:44, Scott Little wrote to Jan Vermeulen


 SL> [ 29 Dec 02 17:01, Jan Vermeulen wrote to Scott Little ]

 JV>> And then you get back a standard nodelist - which you will need
 JV>> to convert into XML

 SL> True, but probably not in the way you think, as long as the
 SL> software is correctly written.  I can take that SLF nodelist, and
 SL> incorporate it into the XML nodelist, filling in the missing
 SL> pieces.  Only those nodes that don't have a native XML listing
 SL> will need to be converted

 SL> This is where the alternate-distribution comes in.  If some *Cs
 SL> don't distribute XML segments, XML systems will find alternate
 SL> means by which to compile a more complete XML native nodelist,
 SL> with less converted parts

 JV>> in order you have a complete nodelist as required by policy.

 SL> Eh, what?  Which part of Policy 4.07 requires every node to have a
 SL> full copy of the nodelist (as issued by the IC)

AFAIK policy only requires a complete nodelist to exist (s a membership
list) and for *Cs to have a copy as they're reesponsible for distibuting it...
(actually NCs and RCs they only need to distribute the diff files)

Indiovidual nodes can make their own choice, but require an up-to-date copy
if they are to engage in mail (other than default routing)

 JV>> Again and once more: you will need nodelist-to-xml software, you
 JV>> know, that software they said is a PITA to code.

 SL> Users of XML or any alternate nodelists will have to accept that
 SL> there may be inaccuracies in the converted portions, such as a
 SL> system's name with a dot in it ending up in the domain name field
 SL> as well.  Such nodes can be flagged as suspicious during the
 SL> conversion, and treated with caution by XML software

that won't be a new problem, we've got features like that already :(

 -=> Bye <=-

---
 * Origin: If at first you don't succeed, the hell with it. (3:640/1042)

.