# Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution

rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
Wed, 27 Apr 94 16:43:05 -0600

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- In reply to: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"

    Message-Id: <199404272243.QAA27380@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov>

    To: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)

    Subject: Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Apr 94 15:08:22 EDT."

                 <199404271908.AA02002@oit.gatech.edu>

    Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 16:43:05 -0600

    From: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov

ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling) wrote:

> As an aside: are you planning on rolling whois++ specific stuff into
> your resolution paper or is that out of it's scope? If not then I'm
> going to add it to my new(er) URC implementation draft....

While I think that using whois++ is a good choice to get such a
service going quickly, there are other alternatives that people
may want to try out. I know of people who are very interested in
trying Prospero, and another person who would like to look at extensions
to http. No doubt there are other schemes.

Mitra's scenario currently locates the URI server(s) for a particular
publisher and gives us their IP address. However, this is not quite
enough. We have to know how to talk with the server we find at that
address. In order to support a range of alternatives in the experimentation
phase, how about we standardize on a well-known (to us :-) port and a
trivial service on that port which gives the client a list of ports and
services that can really do the URN->URL mapping. Browsers can look at the
list to see if they know how to speak the supported protocol(s) on that
URI server. Later on when we have standardized on a protocol, we can bump
up the version number of the trivial service and have it do the real thing.

Comments?

Ron

- Next message: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- In reply to: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"