# additional requirements for URCs?

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Fri, 12 Aug 1994 17:18:29 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: WWW architecture question"
- Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: URN server?"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: additional requirements for URCs?

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <94Aug12.171843pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Fri, 12 Aug 1994 17:18:29 PDT

Are these elements that must be addressible in URCs?

I.e., should some of the characteristics be definitional?

> * data integrity/fault detection: If fred says "see XXX for info on
> apples," and I get XXX and it has info on oranges, I can't tell
> if there was a fault, let alone where it was. A reference/link/citation
> should be _able_ (not required) to contain integrity information
> of various levels of reliability:
>
> "see rfc822.txt; you'll know you've got the right XXX if
> it came from ds.internic.net any time since 1990"
> (allows replication by caching)
>
> "see foo.tar.Z; you'll know you've got the right foo.tar.Z if
> it has 1210921 bytes."
>
> "see foo.tar.Z; you'll know you've got the right XXX if
> it has a gnu cksum checksum of 1203980123"
>
> "see XXX; you'll know you've got the right XXX if
> it has an MD5 checksum of 2342345234lksjw34"
>
> "see XXX; you'll know you've got the right XXX if
> it's been RSA signed by fred@foo.com"
> (works for documents that change)

This would require some characteristics to be 'definitional';
the 'content-length' attribute doesn't normally have the semantics of
'this foo.tar.Z must be 1210921 bytes' but rather 'this foo.tar.Z has
1210921 bytes'.

> * democratic publishing model -- anybody should be able to
> spontaneously create a lasting name for a document without doing
> an RPC with a naming authority. Authorized users should be
> able to create a name within a naming authority's namespace
> by doing an authenticated RPC. Document names must be associated
> with copyright owners only -- not service providers etc. (Witness
> the recent issues with 1-800 number portability between AT&T & MCI).

Is this a requirement for URNs that wasn't in the requirement
document?

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: WWW architecture question"
- Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: URN server?"