W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2001

Re: comments on draft-eastlake-cturi-01.txt

From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:26:03 -0500
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, uri@w3.org, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Michael Mealling <michaelm@netsol.com>, Ted Hardie <hardie@equinix.com>
Message-ID: <20010121032603.C15869@bailey.dscga.com>
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 12:21:26AM -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Larry Masinter <masinter@Adobe.COM> wrote:
> > That you, Aaron Swartz, do not see the need to use anything
> > other than "http://www.iana.org", which has sufficient
> > stability for your own purposes, doesn't mean that it will
> > meet the needs of everyone else.
> > 
> > I suppose this argument will persist until we resolve
> > the W3C/IETF split over the utility of URNs and their
> > role in protocol element identification.
> I hate to see this argument pointlessly persist, so I will stop arguing
> after this question:
> Why aren't my URLs safe? That is, why do I have to worry about an address at
> iana.org suddenly disappearing one day? What needs are not met by this
> system?

From my standpoint there are two reasons:

One of the main reasons is that due to existing case law you 
don't own your domain-name (the same way you don't own your telephone
number). If a court says so a registry is required to remove that
domain-name from service and either not give it back out to anyone or
sell it to someone (probably a competitor).

Reason two: since there is nothing inherent to domain-names or
http or anything else, the only way I know I can use your
URLs anytime beyond tomorrow afternoon is that you have told me so.
That may be fine if I interact with you on a daily basis but
if I come across some URI 'in the wild' I have no idea how
persistent it may be and if I do act as though it were useable
beyond tomrrow afternoon then _I_ am the one making an error in
assumptions. Now, if the URI scheme requires that it be persistent
then I can start doing some pretty powerful things since I can
now make that assumption safely. If the URI I find 'in the wild'
is part of that scheme and it doesn't follow those rules then
I know that it is an error in the network, not in my making
erroneous assumptions....

> I use URLs for a lot of the work I do and I'm curious whether I'm making a
> mistake.

Probably not for most cases. But if you plan on using a URI 10 or 20
years from now it just might be a problem. Heck, there was a large amount
of discussion at the last IETF about creating a new DNS class
and changing the rules _completely_ (in a new class you don't
have to follow any of the old rules, including delegation models).


Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Sunday, 21 January 2001 03:36:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC