# draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt IESG comments

Erik Huizer (Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl)
Fri, 04 Nov 1994 09:35:27 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Erik Huizer: "generic IESG comments"
- Previous message: Erik Huizer: "<draft-ietf-uri-url-08.txt> IESG comments"
- Next in thread: John A. Kunze: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt IESG comments"
- Maybe reply: John A. Kunze: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt IESG comments"

    Message-Id: <9411040835.AA08003@mocha.bunyip.com>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt IESG comments

    Date: Fri, 04 Nov 1994 09:35:27 +0100

    From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>

"A resource locator is a kind of resource identifier."???
As Noel as frequently emphasised on big-internet, there is a difference
between a name (an identifier, a topologically insensitive thing), and
a locator. An irl (and a url) is a locator. It describes where something
is right now. It is not the identifier for the thing. Permitting this
confusion will, sooner or later, cause difficulty.

It is interesting that section 3.3 says that the document makes
few uniqueness requirements. In fact it explicitly makes NO
uniqueness requirements under any definition of uniqueness.
I think that the introduction to section 3.3 ought to say that uniqueness
is a non-goal, and that these are the specific forms of uniqueness that
were considered in reaching that conclusion.

While this is probably irrelevant, I actually find it odd that the
"locator" includes the "service" to access the resource. This
is probably defensible, but it is odd.

missing security section
missing authors address
---------

- Next message: Erik Huizer: "generic IESG comments"
- Previous message: Erik Huizer: "<draft-ietf-uri-url-08.txt> IESG comments"
- Next in thread: John A. Kunze: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt IESG comments"
- Maybe reply: John A. Kunze: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt IESG comments"