- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:21:00 -0600
- To: touch@isi.edu
- Cc: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov, liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
touch@ISI.EDU wrote: > > > OK, I'll bite: how is it that "location-dependent" vs. > > "location-independent" is a technical distinction? > It's very technical. The host requirements RFC specifies locations > as either fully-qualified DNS names or IP addresses. And that's what > you have here. I.e., you have as much of a location as the internet > allows. Ah! I wan't aware of that. I really appreciate you pointing that out. OK, I'm happy with 'location-independent' as a technical term if 'location' is defined as 'FQDN or IP address'. I inferred the more geographic connotations. I want that in the specs though. If I didn't know it, I'm sure lots of other folks didn't know it. A quick scan of the URN requirements/framework draft[1] and the URN requirements RFC[2] doesn't show a similar definition of 'location'. And there's no reference to the host requirements RFC. Hang on... I went to add it to my glossary of web architecture terms[3], but a brief scan of the host requirements RFC[4] shows: |the DNS provides globally-unique, | location-independent names. If a FQDNs are locations, how does DNS provide location-independent names? In fact, I don't see this definition of location that you refer to at all in the host requirements RFC[4]. Could you elaborate? [1] ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-req-frame-00.txt [2] http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1737.txt [3] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Architecture/Terms [4] ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc1123.txt
Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 12:40:26 UTC