- From: <touch@isi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:30:49 -0800
- To: touch@isi.edu, connolly@w3.org
- Cc: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov, liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
> From connolly%w3.org@beach.w3.org Fri Feb 21 09:39:57 1997 > > 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. > 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. That is a clear inconsistency. Given that HTTP/1.1 does ref it. > 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? We're confusing the term location here, as is probably obvious. The DNS provides globally-unique, (geographically) location-independent names. FQDNs are locations, just not geographic ones. Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu http://www.isi.edu/~touch/ ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/ USC / Research Assistant Prof. http://www.isi.edu/lsam/
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 1997 13:31:13 UTC