Re: URN: vs alternatives

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: William Y. Arms: "URNs: syntax and registries"
• Previous message: Michael Mealling: "New I-D: Uniform Resource Names, ISO OIDs and DNS"
• Maybe in reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "URN: vs alternatives"

Message-Id: <v02140613acdfaa78dfae@[192.197.208.4]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:57:27 -0500
To: Jon Knight <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
From: paf@bunyip.com (Patrik Faltstrom)
Subject: Re: URN: vs alternatives
Cc: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, fielding@avron.ics.uci.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

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: William Y. Arms: "URNs: syntax and registries"
• Previous message: Michael Mealling: "New I-D: Uniform Resource Names, ISO OIDs and DNS"
• Maybe in reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "URN: vs alternatives"