# Re: Finding URN->URL servers

Mitra (mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us)
Thu, 24 Feb 1994 16:35:33 -800 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Finding URN->URL servers"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: URN to URC scenario"
- In reply to: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Finding URN->URL servers"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Finding URN->URL servers"

    Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 16:35:33 -800 (PDT)

    From: Mitra <mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    Subject: Re: Finding URN->URL servers

    To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>

    In-Reply-To: <9402242358.AA13016@expresso.bunyip.com>

    Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9402241620.G1599-0100000@pandora.sf.ca.us>

Peter,

I dont think it's going to be a seperate protocol - whois++ seems fine as
a basic query response mechanism. However, I dont at all think that
people doing URN->URC lookup are going to need or want to put together
the whole of whois++. I think we are going to want a sub/superset of
whois++, which means that a whois++ server can - but is not required - to
serve it, and that a much simpler client can query it. If URN->URC server
answers on the whois++ port, then people are going to expect it to
implement the whole of the whois++ protocol.

I figure that a reasonable URN->URC resolver could be implemented in a
couple of hundred lines of perl (in fact I did just that before the
suggestion to use whois++ came up). Implementing whois++ takes a lot more
than that.

- Mitra

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Finding URN->URL servers"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: URN to URC scenario"
- In reply to: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Finding URN->URL servers"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Finding URN->URL servers"