# draft-ietf-uri-urn-madsen-critique-00.txt

William Y. Arms (warms@CNRI.Reston.VA.US)
Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:10:32 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Patrik Faltstrom: "Re: Persistent Documents and Locations"
- Previous message: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US: "I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-uri-urn-madsen-critique-00.txt"

    Message-Id: <ac6114060302100400b6@[132.151.1.217]>

    Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:10:32 -0500

    To: msm@ansa.co.uk

    From: "William Y. Arms" <warms@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

    Subject: draft-ietf-uri-urn-madsen-critique-00.txt

Mark,

This Internet draft, which was posted last week, appears to be the text
that you circulated in July. It is woefully innacurate and I strongly
recommend that you withdraw it. In particular, almost every statement
about the handle system is wrong.

On July 16, Dan LaLiberte sent out an excellent message that (amongst other
items) identified the major mistakes in you discussion of the handle
system. The worst errors are as follows:

" However, these servers are again both naming authorities and resolution
services, with all the limitations that implies."

This statement is wrong.

"The handle syntax ..... sepcifies that the handles carry along with them
sets of typed
structured information, and corresponding administrative information."

This statement totally confuses the handle as seen by the client, and the
internal information that is stored within the servers.

"The proposal also considers such issues as handle administration tols,
access to services through firewalls, and cacheing of handles. While
important, these issues are orthogonal to the construction of naming
scheme frameworks, and should be left to other documents."

Are you saying that implementation considerations have no place in an
Internet draft?

Bill Arms

- Next message: Patrik Faltstrom: "Re: Persistent Documents and Locations"
- Previous message: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US: "I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-uri-urn-madsen-critique-00.txt"