Re: IETF agenda

Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
Wed, 15 Mar 95 16:59:44 CST


Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 16:59:44 CST
From: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
Message-Id: <9503152259.AA11037@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: IETF agenda
In-Reply-To: <95Mar15.115340pst.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>

mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Michael Shapiro) said:
 > > I would be willing to come and present the current thinking on the
 > > "path" URN scheme proposed some time back by Dan LaLiberte.  

Larry Masinter writes:

 > In my personal opinion, presentations, even if
 > interesting, are not high priority unless they're going to lead to
 > progress on the documents that the committee is charged with
 > producing.
 > At this point in our discussions on URNs, we need people
 > either to propose amendments to the current URN draft or else
 > volunteer to produce a new alternative URN proposal.

To be more concrete, we will propose a new alternative URN scheme,
called the path scheme.  We may also propose some amendments to the
URN requirements RFC, if that is in order.

As a point of clarification, the current URN draft should not be
considered *the* URN scheme.  In other words, "the current URN draft"
could be one of many rather than the only one.  I realize that the
draft in question gives the name of the scheme as "urn:", but I
believe this is a mistake.

Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/