# Re: Single protocol for UR*?

Peter Deutsch (peterd@bunyip.com)
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 13:38:39 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Previous message: Fred Swartz: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"

    Message-Id: <9310291738.AA05928@expresso.bunyip.com>

    From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>

    Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 13:38:39 -0400

    In-Reply-To: Dirk Herr-Hoyman's message as of Oct 29,  9:43

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

            "Fred Swartz" <fred.swartz@umich.edu>

    Subject: Re: Single protocol for UR*?

[ You wrote: ]

> 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.

Well, I wouldn't be insulted to be described as a
"Socialist", but I prefer to think of myself as an
ecologist in this context! :-)

I'm not sure this is really an area for a public utility
monopoly, since I don't see that we have the conditions
for a natural monopoly (eg. high capital cost,
corresponding barriers to entry and so on). I of course
would prefer if everyone agreed upon one choice, I just
despaired over reaching consensus, given what I've seen of
the URL debate over the last year.

> 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.

I agree, but after something like 18 months of trying to
reconcile the WWW community's perceptions of URLs with the
rest of the community's, I was afraid of embarking upon
another consolidation effort. I'm certainly not happy with
the way this has turned out and thought that my "call to
arms" might at least galvanize the debate. So far it's
actually turned out better than I could have hoped. We may
be able to give you what you want after all...

> >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.

Why thank you. I happen to agree with your assessment, but
didn't want to start a protocol war. If there are no
serious objections then I think we might be able to get on
with it after all. I'm crossing my fingers as I type
(which makes it difficult, I can tell you! ;-)

- peterd

    --

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Previous message: Fred Swartz: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"