# Re: Seattle minutes

Bob Kummerfeld (bob@cs.wisc.edu)
Wed, 06 Apr 1994 11:13:45 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US: "I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-uri-url-03.txt, .ps"
- Previous message: Bob Kummerfeld: "Re: URC's"
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: pays@faugeres.inria.fr: "Re: Seattle minutes"

    Message-Id: <9404061613.AA00299@emmetal.cs.wisc.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Seattle minutes

    Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 11:13:45 -0500

    From: Bob Kummerfeld <bob@cs.wisc.edu>

In message <9404060312.AA14442@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>, Alexsander Totic writes:
>
>The hard issues arise when designing a protocol for URN->URC resolution.
>What should be in this protocol? Should the protocol be really simple,
>with a single GET command, or should we add facilities for searching,
>database updating, etc. Would a single protocol for different URN->URC
>scenarios be desired at all?
>
Surely we should be considering whois++ for URN->URC resolution without
inventing a new directory lookup system?

URCs should fit nicely into whois++ templates.

Bob Kummerfeld

- Next message: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US: "I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-uri-url-03.txt, .ps"
- Previous message: Bob Kummerfeld: "Re: URC's"
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: pays@faugeres.inria.fr: "Re: Seattle minutes"