# Re: Seattle minutes

Peter Deutsch (peterd@bunyip.com)
Wed, 6 Apr 1994 15:29:52 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC's"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC's"
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: Keith Moore: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Reply: Keith Moore: "Re: Seattle minutes"

    Message-Id: <9404062029.AA11884@expresso.bunyip.com>

    From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>

    Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 15:29:52 -0500

    In-Reply-To: Bob Kummerfeld's message as of Apr  6, 11:13

    To: Bob Kummerfeld <bob@cs.wisc.edu>, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Seattle minutes

Hi all,

[ Bob Kummerfeld wrote: ]

> In message <9404060312.AA14442@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>, Alexsander Totic writes:
> >
> >The hard issues arise when designing a protocol for URN->URC resolution.
> >What should be in this protocol? Should the protocol be really simple,
> >with a single GET command, or should we add facilities for searching,
> >database updating, etc. Would a single protocol for different URN->URC
> >scenarios be desired at all?
> >
> Surely we should be considering whois++ for URN->URC resolution without
> inventing a new directory lookup system?
>
> URCs should fit nicely into whois++ templates.

Not to mention that there are now several different
implementations of WHOIS++ servers available so people can
start experimenting with it now, and as of today the basic
WHOIS++ protocol doc has finally been submitted to the
IETF as an Internet Draft (and I'd like to publically
thank Rickard Schoultz, Patrik Faltstrom and Chris Weider
for pulling the final draft together and finally getting
it out the door after I allowed it to languish 95 percent
finished for far too long. My apologies and I can only
plead overwork and undersleep!)

While on the topic, I'd like to point out that the basic
WHOIS++ protocol has by design been kept relatively
simple. There is a simple data model, a relatively simple
query syntax and a minimum of required functionality. The
specified output formats are intended to be machine
readible and it is hoped that it would be relatively
simple to use WHOIS++ as a frontend to a large variety of
existing database systems.

I happen to believe that at its heart the URN->URL
translation problem is pretty straightforward (and I mean
the translation part, not the harder task of finding the
appropriate server, although I think the proposals kicking
around for that are going to work fine to get us started).
I think that we're now at the point where people can start
experimenting with pilot servers. I really don't think we
need another protocol before we can try this stuff out now.
All we really need is a source of URNs and URLs.

Data, anyone? :-)

- peterd

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      My proposal for funding the Internet is pretty simple. I vote we institute
      an "Information Superhighway" tax, the proceeds of which will be used to
      fund network infrastructure. The way this would work is simple - every time
      someone uses the words "Information Superhighway" or any of its derivatives
      we strike them with a sharp object and make them pay a $10 fee (of course,
      the sharp object is not actually needed to make this scheme work, it's just
      in there because it seems an appropriate thing to do...)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC's"
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC's"
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: Keith Moore: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Reply: Keith Moore: "Re: Seattle minutes"