Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services

Paul Rarey (Paul.Rarey@systems.dhl.com)
Wed, 1 Feb 1995 09:26:59 -0800


From: Paul Rarey <Paul.Rarey@systems.dhl.com>
Message-Id: <9502010927.ZM17455@maverick.systems.DHL.COM>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 09:26:59 -0800
In-Reply-To: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
To: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services
Cc: kball@kballuw.sjf.novell.com

On Feb 1,  5:21, Jon P. Knight wrote:
> Subject: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services

}Why don't you just define a new method such as nhtp: that is designed to
}work over IPX?  Surely hacking in multiple transports into the existing
}URLs is a bad idea as you'll just have to do it all over again when you
}move to IP:ng along with the rest of us (you are moving right? :-) ).  And

Well.... The whole purpose of naming schemes is that they add a layer of 
abstraction from transports. Transports add a layer of abstraction from network 
protocols, net protocols add a layer of abstraction from media protocols (ether, 
FDDI etc.). Although I haven't digested the IPng papers, I believe it is a safe 
bet that application(s - or application protocols such as hppt, smtp etc.) will 
not have to change in their use of TCP in order for IPng to be the encapsulating 
network layer protocol).

}not to mention that there's more to the WWW than HTTP; are you planning on
}coming up with IPX versions of FTP, gopher, NNTP, etc, etc and change
}those URLs as well?

...:-(

}Why don't you just define a new method such as nhtp: that is designed to
}work over IPX?  Surely hacking in multiple transports into the existing
}URLs is a bad idea as you'll just have to do it all over again when you
}move to IP:ng along with the rest of us (you are moving right? :-) ).  

Note above....

}                                                                      And
}not to mention that there's more to the WWW than HTTP; are you planning on
}coming up with IPX versions of FTP, gopher, NNTP, etc, etc and change
}those URLs as well? 

I think if "IPX" is substitued with "NDS & BINDRY" this statement makes sense.

}If you used a new nhtp: method to denote Novell's Hypertext Transfer
}Protocol, we Internet types could just set up proxy gateways that took your

I would say the proxy"ing" should be done at the Novell http/"nhtp" gateway. We 
"Internet types" should not have to proxy (actually gateway - ugh) such things. 

-- 


Cheers!

[ psr ]