# Re: Seattle minutes

pays@faugeres.inria.fr
06 Apr 94 21:34:10+0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: URC's"
- Previous message: Keith Moore: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Seattle minutes"

    Date: 06 Apr 94 21:34:10+0200

    From: pays@faugeres.inria.fr

    To: uri@bunyip.com, bob@cs.wisc.edu

    Subject: Re: Seattle minutes

    Message-Id: <765660850.16900.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@MHS>

> >
> >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.

Probably.
However who will tell me what is a directory name in case of whois++?
As far as I know it is not imposed by whois++ and thus the group
will still have to define decide for a naming scheme.
Once this decided, probably whois++ but also several other
technologies/protocols will be available to provide the resolution service.

Moreover as any other technology whois++ is a protocol a technology
not a service, and we need a service. Using whois++
does not prevent to organize and manage a service,
define the servers, their roles, which and when the exchange their
"knowledge" (indexes) aso...

-- PAP

- Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: URC's"
- Previous message: Keith Moore: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Seattle minutes"