Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 16:59:44 CST
From: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
Message-Id: <9503152259.AA11037@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: IETF agenda
In-Reply-To: <95Mar15.115340pst.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>
mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Michael Shapiro) said:
> > I would be willing to come and present the current thinking on the
> > "path" URN scheme proposed some time back by Dan LaLiberte.
Larry Masinter writes:
> In my personal opinion, presentations, even if
> interesting, are not high priority unless they're going to lead to
> progress on the documents that the committee is charged with
> producing.
> At this point in our discussions on URNs, we need people
> either to propose amendments to the current URN draft or else
> volunteer to produce a new alternative URN proposal.
To be more concrete, we will propose a new alternative URN scheme,
called the path scheme. We may also propose some amendments to the
URN requirements RFC, if that is in order.
As a point of clarification, the current URN draft should not be
considered *the* URN scheme. In other words, "the current URN draft"
could be one of many rather than the only one. I realize that the
draft in question gives the name of the scheme as "urn:", but I
believe this is a mistake.
Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/