# protocol for urn->url

Marc Andreessen (marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
Thu, 28 Oct 93 17:15:14 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: protocol for urn->url"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN resolver scaling"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: protocol for urn->url"
- Maybe reply: Peter Deutsch: "Re: protocol for urn->url"

    Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 17:15:14 -0700

    From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)

    Message-Id: <9310290015.AA03841@wintermute.ncsa.uiuc.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: protocol for urn->url

I'm a little stunned that it's actually being proposed that a protocol
NOT be developed/designated for the URN->URL dereferencing process.

I don't see how the argument for "let the market decide" has any more
validity here than it would when applied to TCP, IP, FTP, NNTP, or any
other protocol designed to deliver a specific piece of functionality
over the network.

Without a protocol, you have fragmentation and confusion (if even
that). With a protocol, you have functionality. Isn't that what we
want?

Cheers,
Marc

    --
    Marc Andreessen
    Software Development Group
    National Center for Supercomputing Applications
    marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (MIME welcomed here)

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: protocol for urn->url"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN resolver scaling"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: protocol for urn->url"
- Maybe reply: Peter Deutsch: "Re: protocol for urn->url"