# Re: The Path URN Specification

John Curran (jcurran@nic.near.net)
Mon, 27 Mar 1995 03:24:16 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Pierre Desjardins: "Re: Uniform Resource Agents -- a draft proposal"
- Previous message: Ronald E. Daniel: "revised URC scenarios draft"
- Maybe in reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "The Path URN Specification"
- Next in thread: Michael Shapiro: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Reply: Michael Shapiro: "Re: The Path URN Specification"

    Message-Id: <v02110103ab9c248b8a9c@[198.114.157.23]>

    Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 03:24:16 -0500

    To: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>

    From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>

    Subject: Re: The Path URN Specification

At 5:58 PM 3/17/95, Daniel LaLiberte wrote:

>...
>The resolution process proceeds as follows.
>
> 1. The entire URN, except the scheme and the final component, is
> converted to a DNS name appended with ".path.urn". For example,
>
> path:/A/B2/C1/doc.html is converted to
> c1.b2.a.path.urn

Hmm.

Is there an implicit assumption regarding the relationship between
the "ownership" of a given DNS domain and an associated subdomain
under the "path.urn" space? Is there explicitly no relationship?

For example, could I register one of my servers as the "uiuc.edu" URN
servers, and thereby preempt use of URNs which begin <path:/uiuc.edu/...>?

It might be a good idea to have some discussion in the document about
the operational and administrative impacts of this mapping approach.

/John

- Next message: Pierre Desjardins: "Re: Uniform Resource Agents -- a draft proposal"
- Previous message: Ronald E. Daniel: "revised URC scenarios draft"
- Maybe in reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "The Path URN Specification"
- Next in thread: Michael Shapiro: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Reply: Michael Shapiro: "Re: The Path URN Specification"