- From: Patrik Faltstrom <paf@bunyip.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:57:27 -0500
- To: Jon Knight <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, fielding@avron.ics.uci.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu, uri@bunyip.com, urn@mordred.gatech.edu
At 08.11 95-11-26, Jon Knight wrote: >This distinction hadn't really hit me in the face until I read Paul's >messages in the IETF mailing list earlier today, but now I can see why we >need _both_ DNS style and whois++/LDAP/SOLO/etc URN resolution. The DNS is very good in giving you data back from for example a query about a hostname (given a specific name) which handles a service. We do it today with MX records. DNS should NOT be used for resolving documents, i.e. the whole URN, only the NA. The rest (or global searches) should be done with a protocol suited for that...and this is exactly what we propose as one scheme for resolving a NA to the service used. Patrik
Received on Monday, 27 November 1995 12:58:14 UTC