Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

Michael Mealling (
Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:34:54 -0500 (EST)

From: Michael Mealling <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
In-Reply-To:  <> from "Roy T. Fielding" at "Oct 29, 97 11:58:28 pm"
To: (Roy T. Fielding)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:34:54 -0500 (EST)

Roy T. Fielding said this:
> >> Please note that the "L" in "URL" represents "Locator", not "Location".
> >> Any naming scheme that requires there exist some mechanism for resolution,
> >> whether or not the mechanism is currently in operation, changes over time,
> >> or subject to multiple levels of indirection, is a locator.
> >
> >URNs never required a mechanism for resolution.
> >
> >> There do exist names that are not locators, but those names are not URNs.
> >
> >Actually, unless the documents have changed the design was that the URN
> >need not have a resolution method.
> That's what I thought too, until RFC 2141 went up for last call.  E.g.,
>    7. Functional Equivalence in URNs
>       Functional equivalence is determined by practice within a given
>       namespace and managed by resolvers for that namespeace.
> which in my mind is the same as requiring a resolution method.  There is
> no value in the "urn" scheme if it doesn't define functional equivalence.

Hmm... then we should have done a better job on that section. The document
_should_ have had nothing to say about resolution but I guess it snuck in.

I wonder if that's fixable...


Michael Mealling	| 505 Huntmar Park Drive       | Phone:  (703)742-0400
Software Engineer	| Herndon, VA 22070	       | Fax:    (703)742-9552
Network Solutions	| <URL:>  |