# Re: IETF agenda

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:53:34 PST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: IETF agenda"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: What I"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "IETF agenda"
- Next in thread: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: IETF agenda"
- Reply: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: IETF agenda"

    To: mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: IETF agenda

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <95Mar15.115340pst.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:53:34 PST

Folks, please send your agenda comments to the entire list
(uri@bunyip.com). In my personal opinion, presentations, even if
interesting, are not high priority unless they're going to lead to
progress on the documents that the committee is charged with
producing. At this point in our discussions on URNs, we need people
either to propose amendments to the current URN draft or else
volunteer to produce a new alternative URN proposal.

>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 1995 07:03:56 -0800, mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Michael Shapiro) said:

> Larry,
> I would be willing to come and present the current thinking on the
> "path" URN scheme proposed some time back by Dan LaLiberte. It
> makes use of existing DNS features, but I suspect there will be a
> lot of discussion. It could be explained in perhaps 20 minutes and
> then another 20-30 minutes for discussions. The discussion could be
> limited to how we propose to use DNS or could include some thought
> on what a "path" server has to do to support this scheme.

> The essence of the scheme is to name documents
> /aaa/bbb/ccc/ddd/eee/fff.ps and then use DNS to find the server by
> searching for a server at aaa.urn, bbb.aaa.urn, etc.
> We also think that the http protocol would be used between client and
> server.

> The features include the ability to move any part of the name space
> to a new server, dynamic assignment of the port number, no requirement
> that the URN point to a URC.

> Some issues are (1) the potential burden on DNS and DNS adminstrators,
> (2) the URN requirement for "uniqueness" in the name since
> a side effect of moving documents and have the URN still
> locate them means that documents will end up having multiple names.
> (3) how would URCs fit into this URN scheme.

- Next message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: IETF agenda"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: What I"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "IETF agenda"
- Next in thread: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: IETF agenda"
- Reply: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: IETF agenda"