Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of Tennessee, Oct 30-31

Michael Mealling (Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu)
Wed, 8 Nov 1995 11:24:10 -0500 (EST)


From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199511081624.LAA09171@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of   Tennessee, Oct 30-31
To: msm@ansa.co.uk
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 11:24:10 -0500 (EST)
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, urn@mordred.gatech.edu, uri@bunyip.com,
In-Reply-To: <9511081603.AA02177@euclid.ansa.co.uk> from "msm@ansa.co.uk" at Nov 8, 95 04:03:03 pm

msm@ansa.co.uk said this:
> Keith, you wrote:
> > On October 30-31, several proponents of various URN schemes met to discuss
> > ways to make progress on URNs.  This message contains a report of that
> > meeting, including a list of items for which there was general agreement,
> > a list of topics requiring further discussion, and outlining areas 
> > and assignments for additional work. 
> 
> I may be missing something, but this wasn't an open invitation meeting, 
> right?  For example,you might describe me as an *opponent* of some of 
> the proposals.  I certainly didn't know you were having this meeting.

In defense of Keith it was a meeting of those persons who had current or
pending proposals. It was not meant to 'circumvent' the URN group but
instead to see if several of the competing proposals had any common
ground on which to build on. A few of us made some compromises and we
came up with a proposal. Its just that. The only weight it carries is
that each of the attendees is going to modify his/her proposal to
accomodate the compromises.


> > A URN BOF has been scheduled for the Dallas IETF for further discussion 
> > of these topics.
> 
> This is a Good Thing, although it suggests you aren't reading the 
> mailing lists yourself.  Ron announced this yesterday already.

No. It suggests that Ron was also at the meeting and that this document
also contained the announcement as an action item.

> > Agreements:
> 
> > 2.  New DNS record type 
> > 
> >     It is desirable to define one or more new DNS resource record types
> >     (tentatively called NAPTR records) that define mappings from 
> >     the "NA" portion of a URN to resolution servers for that URN.  
> >     The new resource records will allow listing of multiple resolution
> >     servers and protocols.
> >     
> > 3.  Basic resolution strategy:
> > 
> >     Transform the NA portion of the URN into traditional domain name
> >     syntax, and query DNS for any NAPTR records listed under that domain.
> 
> Not the DNS limitation again.   Please consider putting some 
> extensibility in to the proposal, please please.

DNS can be used for SOME things. As long as its used for what its good for
and nothing else. I've been noted as being one of the more vocal against
DNS. I support this proposal. It limites DNS usage to what its good for.
Personally, I think the path schemes extensions of this are a problematic
but that is a fallback algorithm that is specifically not discussed here.

> >   Service requests
> >     Probably two dimensions of service requests:
> >      
> >       a.) Resource record encoded services
> >           may be a core set of such services which can be defined
> >           in advance.
> >       
> >       b.) Document Link service requests
> >       
> >           there needs to be a way to invoke services by specification
> >           within a document.
> 
> What have these got to do with URNs?  Leave stuff like this for URC 
> services to worry about.  The latter, especially, has already been done 
> without URNs and without embedding hard links into documents, even.

I agree that it needs to be left to URCs but you can't ignore that
it is important to key members of the community.

-MM

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is a game. Someone wins and someone loses. Get used to it.
<BR>
<HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html">Michael Mealling</A>