# Re: URN: vs alternatives

Patrik Faltstrom (paf@bunyip.com)
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:57:27 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mirsad Todorovac: "Proposition on advanced URL features (Request for comments)"
- Previous message: Al Gilman: "Re: mid and cid URLs"
- Maybe in reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "URN: vs alternatives"

    Message-Id: <v02140613acdfaa78dfae@[192.197.208.4]>

    Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:57:27 -0500

    To: Jon Knight <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

    From: paf@bunyip.com (Patrik Faltstrom)

    Subject: Re: URN: vs alternatives

At 08.11 95-11-26, Jon Knight wrote:
>This distinction hadn't really hit me in the face until I read Paul's
>messages in the IETF mailing list earlier today, but now I can see why we
>need _both_ DNS style and whois++/LDAP/SOLO/etc URN resolution.

The DNS is very good in giving you data back from for example a query
about a hostname (given a specific name) which handles a service.
We do it today with MX records.

DNS should NOT be used for resolving documents, i.e. the whole URN,
only the NA. The rest (or global searches) should be done with a
protocol suited for that...and this is exactly what we propose
as one scheme for resolving a NA to the service used.

Patrik

- Next message: Mirsad Todorovac: "Proposition on advanced URL features (Request for comments)"
- Previous message: Al Gilman: "Re: mid and cid URLs"
- Maybe in reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "URN: vs alternatives"