- From: Ron Daniel Jr. <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:01:32 -0700
- To: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, touch@isi.edu
- 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
Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 13:02:19 UTC