# Re: The Path URN Specification

Martin Hamilton (martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk)
Sat, 18 Mar 1995 15:47:32 +0000

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Relative URL draft 06"
- Previous message: Megan Davies Walnut: "Re: proposed URI agenda"
- In reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "The Path URN Specification"
- Next in thread: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Reply: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: The Path URN Specification"

    Message-Id: <199503181547.PAA02919@lust.mrrl.lut.ac.uk>

    To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)

    Subject: Re: The Path URN Specification

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 1995 16:58:25 CST."

                 <199503172258.QAA20216@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>

    Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 15:47:32 +0000

    From: Martin Hamilton <martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk>

Daniel LaLiberte writes:

| Below is the draft of our path scheme specification. This same
| version (modulo format, name, and date) will be submitted as an
| internet draft.

Very thought provoking - thanks!

It seems a bit too complicated. I wonder whether the sub-node stuff is really necessary - could the resolver not just recurse down to the most deeply nested DNS server ? e.g. consider a path URN of

/publishers/uk/hamish-hamilton/authors/peter-ackroyd

In my version, the resolver would look up

(1) NS records for publishers.path.urn.
(2) NS records for uk.publishers.path.urn.
(3) NS records for hamish-hamilton.uk.publishers.path.urn.

Say the first two lookups are OK, but the third one fails as Hamish Hamilton don't run their own nameserver. Now the resolver falls back to the last nameserver it spotted - the one for /publishers/uk - and looks up

(4) A record for hamish-hamilton.uk.publishers.path.urn.

How does that sound ?

Martin

- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Relative URL draft 06"
- Previous message: Megan Davies Walnut: "Re: proposed URI agenda"
- In reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "The Path URN Specification"
- Next in thread: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Reply: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: The Path URN Specification"