Re: [URN] draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt

Ron Daniel, Jr. (rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov)
Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:38:57 -0700


Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970328103705.009c93a0@acl.lanl.gov>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:38:57 -0700
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Patrik Faltstrom <paf@swip.net>
From: "Ron Daniel, Jr." <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: [URN] draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-url@imc.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com

At 03:13 AM 3/28/97 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

>Patrik Faltstrom wrote:
>> A namespace is definitely not the same thing as a URL scheme.

>A namespace definitely IS the same thing as a URL scheme.
>
>I don't have any logical argument, but I can cite the
>intent of the designer of URLs:
[...]
>See also, RFC1630 (informational)

Gee Dan, when I read 1630 it says things like:

"For existing Internet access protocols, it is necessary in most
cases to define the encoding of the access algorithm into something
concise enough to be termed address. URIs which refer to objects
according to existing protocols are known as "Uniform Resource
Locators" (URL)s ..."

and

"There is currently a drive to define a space of more persistent names
than any URLs. These "Uniform Resource Names" are the subject of an
IETF working group discussions."  (The group he was referring to was
URI-WG. They are now being discussed in the more tightly focused URN-WG).

Tim drew a pretty clear distinction between address and names.
Addresses had a mapping to Internet Protocols, names did not.

The URN-WG's charter is based on that distinction, so any followups
should drop it from the CC list.

Regards,

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