Re: [URN] Checksums in URNs
Ryan Moats (jayhawk@ds.internic.net)
Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:32:08 -0600
Message-Id: <32BAA368.4FD2@ds.internic.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:32:08 -0600
From: Ryan Moats <jayhawk@ds.internic.net>
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
Cc: Towsner <tows@earthlink.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>,
Subject: Re: [URN] Checksums in URNs
My turn to add my two cents worth...
Martin J. Duerst wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Towsner wrote:
>
> > >Checksums and other kinds of decorations can be done outside the
> > >URL. Think of it as a metascheme:
> > > ck:<checksum><url>
> > > e.g. ck:A3Bd:http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
> >
> > I like the idea of having the checksum be optional, as a
> > meta-scheme.
>
> Same for me.
I'll make three...
> >I also think the checksum should be limited to alpha-numeric
> > characters, to avoid confusion.
>
> What do you mean by "limited to alpha-numeric characters"? Can you be
> more precise.
How about just hex characters to keep it simple...
> >Perhaps this should be part of the URL
> > scheme as well.
>
> If it is a metascheme, then it is a new URI scheme. It doesn't
> have to be discussed either in URL nor in URN syntax. It would
> go into a separate draft. It has to make sure, on its own,
> that it is compatible with the URL/URN syntax.
I agree with Martin, and if we use ck:<hex sequence> then we
are already compatible with the URL/URN character sets. How to
generate the hex sequence is another headache altogether...
> Perhaps the URL syntax draft, where it speaks about URIs,
> could be generalized in the direction of metaschemes.
> From the syntax viewpoint, we already have two metaschemes
> (urn: and ck:), which can even be combined together,
> as ck:urn:namespace:NSS.
Martin is correct here as well.
Ryan