Re: Question for DNS propronents?

Larry Masinter said this:
> > This was something I was thinking about in Danvers. We seem to have to
> > much on our plate AND no focus. I'm all for splitting the URI group
> > into two groups: one for URNs and one for URCs. One just points to the
> > other.....
> A while back, I posted a request that people comment on revising the
> charter for the URI working group. If you have a proposal for
> focussing the charter of the working group, please put it forward.
> Personally, I don't see how increasing the number of working groups
> will lessen the amount of work to be done. 

I don't either. It was just an idea.....

> Are there any URN proposals that you would discard out of hand? Are
> there any that you think are workable but only with major
> modification?

I'm not going to discard anything out of hand. There are bits and
pieces of each one that are appropriate. It was just an idea for
allowing more meetings without the criticizm of being unfocused.

I'm sure IPng would have had the same criticism if they had tried
to do everything in one working group. Instead they spawned off 

Just a suggestion. If noone else pipes up consider it dead and buried.

Life is a game. Someone wins and someone loses. Get used to it.
<HR><A HREF="">Michael Mealling</A>

Received on Wednesday, 14 June 1995 19:10:34 UTC