Re: [URN] HTTP resolution protocol

At 06:34 PM 7/17/97 -0400, John C. Mallery wrote:
>can we come up with an HTTP 1.1 extension
>method to do resolution rather than the magic directory hack?

[The magic directory hack is Experimental RFC 2169]
I think that would be the right thing to do. I'd be happy to see
the magic directory stuff go away, although for backward
compatibility with old HTTP servers there doesn't seem to be
much of an alternative.

Michael Mealling and I have done some more work on a resolution
services draft. It will define services such as
I2C (Given a URI, return a description of the resource identified by the URI.
     The Accept: header should be honored to allow the client some ability
     to tell the resolver what sort of description is desired. This is
     pretty much the LINK method, if memory serves. There may be some
     interaction with the work of the WEB-DAV group as well.)
I2R (Given a URI, return the resource. This would, one assumes, be implemented
     in HTTP as GET.)
I2L (Given a URI, return a URL for it.)
I2N (Given a URI, return a URN for it. (This comes from a working group
     that distinguishes between URNs and URLs. Not everyone in the world
     does so. This point seems likely to get some discussion :-)  )

There are some other methods I can't recall off the top of my head,
I'll check with Michael on the current state of the draft. Anyway,
doing it with proper methods seems achievable.  More later...

Ron Daniel Jr.              voice:+1 505 665 0597
Advanced Computing Lab        fax:+1 505 665 4939
MS B287           
Los Alamos National Lab
Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545  

Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 16:12:09 UTC