Re: Question for DNS propronents?
Thu, 15 Jun 1995 10:34:27 +0000

To:, (Larry Masinter)
Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 10:34:27 +0000
Subject: Re: Question for DNS propronents?

At 07:11 PM 6/14/95 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
>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.....

I agree the work won't go away, but there is some merit to Michael's
original suggestion. Clearly the work for URNs, URCs, etc. must go on
in parrallel. Howerver, there is the risk that if the group focuses on
URNs for now, by the time we are ready to focus on URCs many folks
will have gone off and come up with very different solutions (much like
the situation we are in with URNs currently :-). So although having more
working groups may not be the right answer we ought to consider having
some sort of sub-teams (or something more consistent with IETF practices)
focusing on URNs and URCs separately. If we at least start with some 
amount of common assumptions regarding URCs, I think we will be able to
come up with something a lot quicker.

>> 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.

I agree I think discarding any of the proposals out of hand would be
inappropriate. However, given that there is a URN requirements document,
we ought to be looking at the proposals in light of that. It may be
the case that not all the proposals meet all the requirements or that
they meet the requirements to the same level. I will send something
more on this point over the next few days but I would like to take
a really close look again at the requirements and the proposals before
doing so.