# IRL opaqueness requirement to be loosened

John A. Kunze (jak@violet.berkeley.edu)
Thu, 7 Jul 1994 09:05:01 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: New URC Specification is ready...."
- Previous message: pays@faugeres.inria.fr: "Re: New URC Specification is ready...."

    Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 09:05:01 -0700

    From: jak@violet.berkeley.edu (John A. Kunze)

    Message-Id: <199407071605.JAA23924@violet.berkeley.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: IRL opaqueness requirement to be loosened

As editor of the IRL (Internet Resource Locator) Requirements document,
I propose to loosen its opaqueness requirement (5.8) as follows: instead
of disallowing shared semantics common across all services, require the
existence of a service class (possibly empty) free from shared semantics.
The actual change to the text is very small -- I just added what's between
the *'s below:
----
5.8 An Internet locator consists of a service and an opaque parameter package.

The parameter package has meaning only to the service with which it is
paired, where a service is an abstract access method. An abstract access
method might be a software tool, an institution, or a network protocol.
The parameter package might be service-specific access instructions.
In order to protect creative development of new services, *there is an
extensible class of services for which* no parameter package semantics
common across services may be assumed.
----
The reason for this change is that it preserves an important part of the
requirement while not foreclosing possibilities that recent debate shows
are clearly interesting to the URI group. Without forcing a stand on the
issue, the change merely allows us to focus the debate in one document
instead of dissipating it in two documents.

Note that I left the word "opaque" because it still applies in some sense.
If I'm not mistaken, even ardent shared-semantics proponents use the word
without blushing.

-John

- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: New URC Specification is ready...."
- Previous message: pays@faugeres.inria.fr: "Re: New URC Specification is ready...."