- From: Govind Tatachari <govindt@informix.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:35:02 -0800
- To: www-talk@w3.org
- Cc: govindt@informix.com, bmorin@WPI.EDU
> From bmorin@WPI.EDU Mon Dec 9 16:19 PST 1996 > > Govind Tatachari Wrote: > "1) standard encoding for mirrored information > > This would provide a uniform URL structure to indicate that the > information may be mirrored and further negotiations and policy > resolution can be used to select the location best suited to get > the information. The uniform URL structure can be patterned as > gr<type>.<resource/information-identifier>.<master-location>, > wherein, the gr<type> indicates that the information may be mirrored > (replicated). For example, grftp may mean that the file is possibly > replicated. grhttp would mean that the hypertext information is > replicated and so on. The <resource/information-identifier> would > provide a unique resource/information identifier and <master-location> > would provide a means to specify atleast one known master server." > > There is an issue here of how to handle the primary to mirror mapping > of URLs. However, I think that expanding the current URL specification > would make create problems in updating current applications and maintaining > backwards compatibility. It must be possible to find a suitable encoding (address) space within the current URL specification which can be reserved to specify these special class of replicated (/mirrored) information (/resources) i.e. information which can be served from multiple servers (sources). The issue is somewhat similar to the group addresses for multicasting (in the IP domain). If we consider that the above (encoding) space problem as solvable then it is not difficult to use schemes such as PEP (?) to provide for extensions for negotiating the details. Govind
Received on Monday, 9 December 1996 19:34:53 UTC