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

Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:21:00 -0600


Message-Id: <330DD97C.D6F7D91@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:21:00 -0600
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
To: touch@isi.edu
Cc: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov, liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com,
Subject: 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?

[1] ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-req-frame-00.txt
[2] http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1737.txt
[3] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Architecture/Terms
[4] ftp://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/rfc/rfc1123.txt