# Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution

Alexander Dupuy (dupuy@smarts.com)
Fri, 29 Apr 1994 19:04:20 +0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mitra: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Maybe in reply to: Mitra: "Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Alexander Dupuy: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"

    Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 19:04:20 +0500

    From: dupuy@smarts.com (Alexander Dupuy)

    Message-Id: <9404292304.AA03667@brainy.smarts.com>

    To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov, mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us, peterd@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution

> No argument from me on this one. I've heard this suggestion
> circulate before and agree that it is a good one. One
> observation - we can make this an _extra_ feature, and for
> those who can't or wont use technique, they can still use
> the simple DNS technique to try.
>
> Now, if there _is_ a TXT record, it might indicate several
> optional servers, it might indicate an optional port
> number for special handling, it might indicate the address
> of a specific publisher agent for this particular user at
> this site and so on, but even without any of this we can make a
> first stab at resolution.

Having it as an optional mechanism certainly seems reasonable enough. If we
have some consensus here, perhaps we could get Mitra to add a paragraph or two
about this in the appropriate draft...

@alex

- Next message: Mitra: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Maybe in reply to: Mitra: "Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Alexander Dupuy: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"