# Re: Follow up on charter proposal

Terry Allen (terry@ora.com)
Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:30:31 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Mealling: "New hacked BIND for Uniform Resource Name Authorities"
- Previous message: Chris Weider: "Re: Follow up on charter proposal"

    From: "Terry Allen" <terry@ora.com>

    Message-Id: <9507070730.ZM14520@dmg.west.ora.com>

    Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:30:31 -0700

    In-Reply-To: Chris Weider <clw@bunyip.com>

    To: Chris Weider <clw@bunyip.com>, leslie@bunyip.com, terry@ora.com,

    Subject: Re: Follow up on charter proposal

Chris:
[>Terry:]
| >Leslie:
...
| >| Thus, when the rest of the URI work has
| >| caught up with URC's, we'll be left with a legacy of an implementation AND
| >| derivative work that was built before we'd nailed the basics of URNs
| >| and URN resolution.
| >
| >Gosh, it sure looks as though we'd be left with a very flexible
| >architecture for URC implementations. Do you disagree? If so,
| >why, specifically?
|
| There are three separate components lumped together under the rubric
| 'URC'. The first is basic functionality. This is being addressed under
| the URC Requirements document, but that functionality will necessarily
| evolve as we get deployment experience with URNs and URCs.

The functionality of URCs themselves is very low. They are records,
fully extensible. A plausible set of requirements for their format
has been put forward, and that deserves consideration.

| There need to
| be mechanisms in place to enhance functionality.

Would you give an example of how this is needed, please?

| The second is
| transfer syntax or encoding syntax. There seems to be a bit of confusion
| between the transfer syntax problems and the basic functionality
| questions: these are two facets of the problem which are separable and
| should be handled separately, and I believe that the work on URCs should
| specifically be laid out to handle these separately.

Please explain where you think there is confusion.

| The third is basic
| agreements on what 'schema' should be used in URCs. This work is being
| done in other fora than the IETF but the IETF should have mechanisms to
| bring the work done in and publish it as RFCs.

What you mean by schema here?

| All of these threads
| are more nebulous

There's a lot of nebulousity in *this* thread, but I don't see where it
attaches to proposals before the group, which it is the group's business
to discuss. Let's do that.

| and require more time than the URN work; it seems to
| me that all Leslie is suggesting is that we do URLs and URNs first
| to determine what additional requirements this may impose on the construction
| and deployment of URCs.

Then it is up to Leslie to suggest some way(s) in which further work
on URLs and URNs might require changes in what is now proposed.

Regards,

    --
    Terry Allen  (terry@ora.com)   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
    Editor, Digital Media Group    101 Morris St.
    			       Sebastopol, Calif., 95472

    A Davenport Group sponsor.  For information on the Davenport
      Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html
    	or  http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html

- Next message: Michael Mealling: "New hacked BIND for Uniform Resource Name Authorities"
- Previous message: Chris Weider: "Re: Follow up on charter proposal"