Re: Yet Another Attribute Parameter

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:09:07 PST


To: howes@netscape.com
Cc: michaelm@rwhois.net, ietf-asid@umich.edu, uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <32B71AED.3359@netscape.com> (message from Tim Howes on Tue, 17
Subject: Re: Yet Another Attribute Parameter
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <96Dec17.230907pdt."142"@palimpsest.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:09:07 PST

This is an issue for the new URL working group, to give guidelines on
what belongs in a URL and what doesn't, so I hope you don't mind if I
bring uri@bunyip.com into it. (The conversation should move to
ietf-url@imc.org as soon as that's created.)

Michael:
> In RWhois we are working on a UDP version. Several other protocols have
> both UDP and TCP connection styles. The problem is that URLs don't specify
> which service to use. ...
Tim:
> After thinking about this a bit, I think it makes more sense to
> include this information in the URL itself. A URL is supposed to be
> self-contained, including everything you need to know to access some
> resource. If the protocol you use runs over both TCP and UDP, there
> should be a way in the URL format to indicate which one (or not, if it
> doesn't matter).

The precedent hasn't really been that way. For example, 'ftp:' URLs
don't tell you the media type, and our attempt to make people use URLs
that tell you whether the remote file is text or binary has basically
failed.

If the protocol runs over both TCP and UDP, why not just say 'try UDP
and if it doesn't work, use TCP, and remember that UDP doesn't work to
that host'.

Is this acceptable? Is there any consensus on putting this guideline
into the URL process document?

Larry