Re: URI-protocol mapping

Ron Daniel Jr. (rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov)
Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:01:32 -0700


Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970221110132.00965460@acl.lanl.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:01:32 -0700
To: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, touch@isi.edu
From: "Ron Daniel Jr." <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: URI-protocol mapping
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

At 10:16 AM 2/21/97 -0600, Daniel LaLiberte wrote:
>touch@isi.edu writes:
> > At some point you must know
> > 	who you're talking with
> > 	what protocol to use
>
>If you are resolving a URN, you need to do the same thing, as you also
>pointed out (i.e. you need a protocol to find out what the protocol is).

The difference here is that the URL specs already tell you what to do.
While there are lots of things one *could* do with current URLs, there
are not so many things that can be done while remaining
standards-compliant.

The URN stuff has been developed to allow the same identifiers to be
resolved using a variety of resolution systems. Further, while we define
at least one way to resolve them (NAPTR), we purposfully say that this
is not the ONLY way to do it and we purposfully do not say how one
discovers all the ways to do it. We do not specify *the* "protocol
discovery protocol" you mention above.

>Consider all the ways I listed for how URLs can, in fact, be resolved
>that make them context dependent and relative.  What is wrong with any
>of them?

Nothing, unless you want to comply with the existing standards.


Ron Daniel Jr.              voice:+1 505 665 0597
Advanced Computing Lab        fax:+1 505 665 4939
MS B287                     email:rdaniel@lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Lab      http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel
Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545