# Re: Additional requirements for URCs?

Mitra (mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us)
Sun, 14 Aug 1994 23:21:34 -700 (PST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "diffs from IETF-URI-URL-05.txt"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Gopher+ strings"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"

    Date: Sun, 14 Aug 1994 23:21:34 -700 (PST)

    From: Mitra <mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Additional requirements for URCs?

    Message-Id: <Pine.SCO.3.89.99.940814231124.4179A-100000@pandora.sf.ca.us>

Re: specifying a condition such as "Its right if it has a checksum of 12345"

What is required is the ability to be able to express concepts in a URC,
for example

URN:foo.bar:ABCDEF
Author: Fred Smith <fred@foo.bar>
Integrity: {
Checksum: 12345
}

Note - I'm not suggesting this is the way to go, only that it should be
expressable within a URC.

The second requirement "a democratic publishing module", is going to be
hard in any kind of hierarchical, decentralised allocation setup. If the
publishing entity has a FQDN its easy. otherwise they are going to have
to have some way of obtaining a publishers id. Maybe we'll see services
that only allocate publisher id's within their own name space, so making
the URN independant of any other service that the publisher may require.

- Mitra

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "diffs from IETF-URI-URL-05.txt"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Gopher+ strings"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: Additional requirements for URCs?"