# Re: Single protocol for UR*?

Dirk Herr-Hoyman (hoymand@joe.uwex.edu)
Fri, 29 Oct 93 09:43:55 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Chris Weider: "URN resolvers"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Maybe in reply to: Peter Deutsch: "Single protocol for UR*?"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"

    Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 09:43:55 -0500

    Message-Id: <9310291443.AA06731@joe.uwex.edu>

    To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>, "Fred Swartz" <fred.swartz@umich.edu>

    From: hoymand@joe.uwex.edu (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)

    Subject: Re: Single protocol for UR*?

At 9:45 PM 10/28/93 -0400, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>[ Fred wrote: ]
>
>> > From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
>Why? We currently share information via HTTP, Gopher,
>Prospero and a a number of other protocols quite
>successfully. Each is adapted to a specific "Internet
>ecological niche" and each has its strengths and
>weaknesses. If we can agree on a standard data format, why
>should I care whether you picked up the record via Gopher,
>ftp, WHOIS++ or Prospero?
>
Peter, were you a Socialist in a former career :-)? I don't see this as a
free market situation at all. Clearly a public utility monopoly. The URN
protocol is not at the same level as this others. It's more akin to DNS.
And like DNS it will be buried beneath other layers.

The 85% factor will not necessarily buy a good decision, more likely
whoever gets there first (like DOS). This is WAY to important to just let
happen, as it will be a cornerstone of the future of the Internet.

>To me there is no one clear leader for this application,
>and even if there was we'd have to convince the people
>responsible for _all_ URN and URL information to make the
>same choice. I just don't see it happening. We might as
>well try to convince either a) all Gopher users to convert
>to WWW, or b) all WWW users to convert to Gopher.
>
Oh Peter, you are much too humble. Whois++ looks to be the leading
contender because:

1) It's designed with meta-information in mind.

2) It's designed to be destributed.

3) It's new, not in wide use, and thereby tweakable.

None of the other protocols mentioned score as high in my book.

- Next message: Chris Weider: "URN resolvers"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Maybe in reply to: Peter Deutsch: "Single protocol for UR*?"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"