# Re: Seattle minutes

Peter Deutsch (peterd@bunyip.com)
Thu, 7 Apr 1994 10:11:00 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "URL: Outstanding issues"
- Previous message: Alan Emtage: "Tasks from Seattle"
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Seattle minutes"

    Message-Id: <9404071511.AA13038@expresso.bunyip.com>

    From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>

    Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 10:11:00 -0500

    In-Reply-To: Keith Moore's message as of Apr  6, 22:00

    To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

    Subject: Re: Seattle minutes

Hi Keith,

[ You wrote: ]

> Peter --
. . .
> The real problem with providing a URN->URL translation service is making
> sure that the service is scalable and that the data provided by the
> service is kept up-to-date.

Hear, hear. Note that we're now talking about operational
issues as much as architecture, which leads me to my next point...

> I agree that a single protocol should suffice, though I would
> prefer something with less packet overhead than whois++.
> (i.e. UDP rather than TCP)

It would probably be nice to have only a single protocol,
although I don't see it as an absolute necessity at this
point. Certainly a UDP-based solution would be a win,
assuming we're going to be doing lots of queries (which I
would agree is a safe assumption in the long run). My
point was only that it's time we had some operational
experience with these things and the way to do that is to
take the tools at hand and put up some data. I think
WHOIS++ is far enough along, and is simple enough, to
serve a role here, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if
others used something else. I'm just arguing for some
experimentation.

I recognize the danger that what we mock up becomes the
deployed system, but I think it's worth the risk at this
point.

- peterd

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      My proposal for funding the Internet is pretty simple. I vote we institute
      an "Information Superhighway" tax, the proceeds of which will be used to
      fund network infrastructure. The way this would work is simple - every time
      someone uses the words "Information Superhighway" or any of its derivatives
      we strike them with a sharp object and make them pay a $10 fee (of course,
      the sharp object is not actually needed to make this scheme work, it's just
      in there because it seems an appropriate thing to do...)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "URL: Outstanding issues"
- Previous message: Alan Emtage: "Tasks from Seattle"
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Seattle minutes"