# draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-01.txt: performance estimates?

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:56:58 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-01.txt: performance estimates?"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "An idea for MID and CID URsomethings"
- Next in thread: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-01.txt: performance estimates?"
- Maybe reply: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-01.txt: performance estimates?"

    Message-Id: <199507282157.RAA04860@beach.w3.org>

    To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu, mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu

    Subject: draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-01.txt: performance estimates?

    Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:56:58 -0400

    From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

I just finished reviewing the new draft. I like it.

But... it seems that resolution of path URNs would involve failed
DNS lookups, which take a long time, no?

Under "Resolving the URL-sets into the Resource" it says "After
constructin a list of URL-sets, ..." So I get the impression that the,
for example, http transactions don't start until after the DNS
transactions are done. And failed DNS lookups, in my experience, take
15 to 120 minutes.

Are path: implementations expected to exploit parallelism, or is
there some technique for avoiding failed DNS lookups?

In general, do you have any performance data? Estimates?

Dan

- Next message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-01.txt: performance estimates?"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "An idea for MID and CID URsomethings"
- Next in thread: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-01.txt: performance estimates?"
- Maybe reply: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-01.txt: performance estimates?"