# Re: URN functionality from URLs

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:56:58 PST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: DNS lookups for URLs (was: URN functionality from URLs)"
- Next in thread: Keith Moore: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"
- Reply: Keith Moore: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"

    To: dupuy@smarts.com

    In-Reply-To: dupuy@smarts.com's message of Tue, 14 Dec 1993 18:30:48 -0800 <93Dec14.183057pst.2735@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: URN functionality from URLs

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

    Message-Id: <93Dec15.015659pst.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:56:58 PST

a) Hostnames not only get deleted in DNS, they also get reused by
parties that have nothing to do with the original owners of the
hostname. That's the main reason not to use them in URNs, and hasn't
yet been addressed.

b) If we're considering this kind of naming scheme for URNs, why do we
want to turn them around?

Why not just say URN:1234.rfc.nic.ddn.mil?

c) if the DNS 'works' for host names, why not replicate it rather than
overload it? Can we use DNS protocols without using the existing DNS
servers? Yes, every machine how has to know it's URL server instead of
its DNS server, so we've added more configuration. But, you know, DNS
might be replaced on a different time scale than you want URN->URL
location service to be supplanted. Tying the two services together
seems like senselessly making trouble.

Anyway, the DNS people won't let you use DNS for anything like this,
so you might as well stop dreaming, even though it might work.

- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: DNS lookups for URLs (was: URN functionality from URLs)"
- Next in thread: Keith Moore: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"
- Reply: Keith Moore: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"