Correct me if I am worg, but I strongly feel that this DNS discussion could perhaps be sidestepped: *WHEN* talking about a resolving mechanism, we want to resolve a URN. In the DNS naming scheme we have a DNS name which specifies the host which can resolve the URN for us. So we have *TWO* tasks; A resolving the host-name (through DNS) B asking that host to resolve the URN. Assume the <urn:dns:food.bar.eat.it:my.very.boring.doc.txt> The existing dns system helps you to the IP address for food.bar.eat.it, possibly by going al the way to a name server in the eat.it domain which tells you the IP address. With this IP address you start talking to the host at a certain well known port which will resolve the 'my.very.boring.doc.txt' for you. In short, with the DNS scheme (and any others IMHO) there is *no* need for duplication the DNS resolving mechanism in the URN resolving mechanism. We'll just be talking to *two* ports; one to get the hostname to IP address which gets us the resolving host, and the other one to resolve the actual URN. Dirk-Willem van Gulik http://me-www.jrc.it/~dirkx http://ceo-www.jrc.it DWvGulik@Dialis.xs4all.nl Dirk.vanGulik@jrc.it +39 332 78 1322 +39 332 78 9549 fax +39 332 78 9185 ISEI/ESBA; The Center For Earth Observation Joint Research Centre of the European Communities, Ispra, ItalyReceived on Monday, 19 June 1995 04:29:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:31 UTC