URLs and a private scheme type

Tom Sears (TSEARS@csi.compuserve.com)
03 Jan 95 15:38:54 EST


Date: 03 Jan 95 15:38:54 EST
From: Tom Sears <TSEARS@csi.compuserve.com>
To: uri working group <uri@bunyip.com>
Subject: URLs and a private scheme type
Message-Id: <CSI_6087-111466@CompuServe.COM>

Happy New Year All,

Section 4 of RFC 1738 lists several new schemes that are under consideration 
for the standard URL syntax.  Would there also be a benefit from adding
a "private" scheme?  This private scheme would reserve the namespace for 
general use with very few semantic restrictions other than a scope within 
which the URL is valid.  Different organizations could use this "private" 
namespace internally without worrying about name conflicts with others. 
CompuServe is currently investigating using the URI architecture and this 
scheme would definitely be a very convenient addition for accessing and 
managing internal resources.  This would allow us (or whoever) to use one 
system to handle the naming of both internal and external resources.  The 
"private" scheme could have completely different semantics to another 
organization for example.  Although the "private" scheme namespace would be 
reservered globally, it would only be valid within the domain (I am assuming
use of DNS) of the resource provider.

An example might be...

<URL:private:compuserve.com/some_opaque_string_only_meaningful_to_CS>

whereas another one might be...

<URL:private:att.com/some_opaque_string_only_meaningful_to_ATT>

and so on....

so with that said...Is this a reasonable request?  Are there alternative 
suggestions?  Would such an addition be valuable to others?

	Thanks

	Tom 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sears                                      tsears@csi.compuserve.com
Compuserve, Inc.                             Compuserve Mail: 70004,1755
5000, Arlington Center Blvd., Columbus, OH 43220       PH: (614)538-3248
------------------------------------------------------------------------