W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 1996

Re: URL schemes containing +, -, or .

From: Martin Hamilton <martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 12:21:02 +0100
Message-Id: <199605181121.MAA01860@gizmo.lut.ac.uk>
To: www-talk@w3.org

Larry Masinter writes:

| > I have an Internet Draft (draft-hamilton-whois-url-00.txt) which
| > specifies a URL format for the WHOIS++ protocol using the scheme
| > "whois."  Now, it's been suggested that there really ought to be
| > separate schemes for the old WHOIS protocol, WHOIS++, and RWhois
| > - defined by (respectively) RFCs 954, 1835 and 1714.
| 
| Personally, I'd prefer one URL scheme to three. I don't think there
| are clear-cut rules for deciding, though. Are the various WHOIS
| schemes interoperable? And is some of th is obsoleted by LDAP?

Hmm...

Actually, you can use heuristics to infer the protocol, e.g. RWhois
servers should respond with a banner message whose first seven
characters are

  %RWhois

and WHOIS++ servers should send a banner message whose first five
characters are

  % 220

If the server doesn't return either of these, or hasn't returned
anything at all after some timeout period, it must be speaking WHOIS
(or non-conformant).  The downside is the timeout for WHOIS.

These *WHOIS protocols are all "text" based, if you count inclusion of
arbitrary character sets as still being text, whereas LDAP is cut-down
ASN.1/BER - yikes!
Received on Saturday, 18 May 1996 07:21:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:19 GMT