Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)

touch@ISI.EDU wrote:
> > OK, I'll bite: how is it that "location-dependent" vs.
> > "location-independent" is a technical distinction?

> It's very technical. The host requirements RFC specifies locations
> as either fully-qualified DNS names or IP addresses. And that's what
> you have here. I.e., you have as much of a location as the internet
> allows.

Ah! I wan't aware of that. I really appreciate you pointing
that out.

OK, I'm happy with 'location-independent' as a technical
term if 'location' is defined as 'FQDN or IP
address'. I inferred the more geographic connotations.

I want that in the specs though. If I didn't
know it, I'm sure lots of other folks didn't know it.

A quick scan of the URN requirements/framework draft[1]
and the URN requirements RFC[2] doesn't
show a similar definition of 'location'. And there's
no reference to the host requirements RFC.

Hang on... I went to add it to my glossary of web
architecture terms[3], but a brief scan of the
host requirements RFC[4] shows:

|the DNS provides globally-unique,
|              location-independent names.

If a FQDNs are locations, how does DNS provide
location-independent names?

In fact, I don't see this definition of location
that you refer to at all in the host requirements RFC[4].
Could you elaborate?


Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 12:40:26 UTC