# URN resolvers

Chris Weider (clw@merit.edu)
Fri, 29 Oct 93 10:32:37 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Previous message: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Next in thread: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: URN resolvers"
- Reply: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: URN resolvers"
- Maybe reply: Mitra: "Re: URN resolvers"

    Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 10:32:37 -0400

    From: "Chris Weider" <clw@merit.edu>

    Message-Id: <9310291432.AA24205@merit.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: URN resolvers

I think that a point that Peter's been making is very important, which is that
there are *multiple* protocols that already exist which could do this resolution
once some minor modifications have been made. For the last year, I've been
trying to push the integrated multi-protocol approach for all directory services
activities. Mandating one protocol to do the job is a non-starter in the
Internet community. A completely new protocol from scratch is also a non-starter. So we need to start implementing using current protocols, and
always keep an eye on interoperability. If you look at the history of internet
protcols, none are truly ubiquitous. But it all still works. The 85% solution
in one year is only about 85 times better than anything we have now, so I
think that we should just get on with it.
Chris

- Next message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Previous message: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Next in thread: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: URN resolvers"
- Reply: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: URN resolvers"
- Maybe reply: Mitra: "Re: URN resolvers"