home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
InfoMagic Standards 1994 January
/
InfoMagic Standards - January 1994.iso
/
inet
/
ietf
/
uri
/
93mar.min
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-04-30
|
11KB
|
304 lines
CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by Alan Emtage/BUNYIP
Minutes of the Uniform Resource Identifiers Working Group (URI)
The Uniform Resource Identifiers Working Group held three sessions in
Columbus. These Minutes are separated on a per-session basis.
Agenda
o Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) - Session 1
o Uniform Resource Names (URNs) - Session 2
o Discussion of Other Necessary Objects - Session 3
Uniform Resource Locators (URLS) - Session 1
In order to try to prevent further confusion it was agreed that the
following terminology would be used:
For all the various UR* objects being discuss, the ``U'' would stand for
``Uniform'' and the ``R'' would stand for ``Resource''.
URL is Uniform Resource Locator
URN is Uniform Resource Name
URI is Unform Resource Identifier (the collective name for UR*)
A discussion of Tim Berners-Lee's current draft on Uniform Resource
Locators (URLs) followed. The following points were made:
o It is expected that in the near future character sets other than
ASCII will need to be addressed. However in the short run it was
decided that ASCII would be adequate for the task. The point was
made by several European members of the Working Group that while
other character sets would be necessary, it is important to get the
current draft out and have the protocols discussed therein
implemented. Wording to the effect that this matter has been
addressed should be incorporated into the current text. The
mechanisms defined need to be extensible to allow for expansion in
this area.
o The issue of ``fragments'' was raised. While the current draft
addresses ``large scale'' objects such as entire files and
services, it makes no attempt at defining sub-objects (such as a
1
paragraph, word or individual letter in text file). For example,
how does one define a ``paragraph'' in a PostScript file, given
that this is effectively an interpreted language? The general
consensus was that we still do not have an adequate understanding
of the underlying principles involved and that this discussion
should be pursued on the mailing list.
o The issue of OSI distinguished names in URLs was discussed. While
further discussion is probably warranted, consensus held that this
would probably be too ``heavy'' for the current proposals.
o MIME encodings are also one possible avenue for describing network
objects. It was agreed that the Working Group should work closely
within the framework of existing RFCs for such descriptions.
o It was agreed that the current URL draft should include an example
URL specification for each access method defined in order to guide
implementors.
o Again the issue of partial URLs in the current draft was raised.
It was agreed that while systems may choose to use such constructs
internally, at no time would they be valid at the inter-system
interface. Consensus was reached that stronger warnings need be
placed in the current draft to that effect. It was also agreed
that in the interests of time further discussions of the issue
should be taken to the mailing list. The definition of partial
URLs should also be moved to an appendix of the current document
since they are not part of the official specification. Any
algorithm for determining partial URLs should also be moved to the
appendix.
o The mechanism for registering new access methods with the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) should be more prominently placed
in the current draft. Also, some mechanism for defining
experimental access methods should be included.
o Several issues were raised which, it was decided, were better
suited for the upcoming URN discussion since they fell into that
domain.
- Some form of integrity test was suggested (check digits) for
URLs. It was decided that since URLs are inherently transitory
in nature, that such tests would not be necessary.
- Versioning
- Security issues
- Time to Live (TTLs)
o It is expected that with this input the current draft can be
submitted for Internet-Draft status within a few weeks following
2
the meeting.
Uniform Resource Names (URNs) - Session 2
Before the meeting Cliff Lynch had posted an overview document to the
mailing list titled ``A Framework for Identifying, Locating, and
Describing Networked Information Resources'' and at the beginning of the
session, he described the major points that the paper contained.
John Kunze had also posted a document entitled ``Resource Citations for
Electronic Discovery and Retrieval'' and made a short presentation about
the paper.
Peter Deutsch made a presentation as to a possible architecture for
URNs.
A ``spirited'' discussion followed as a result.
There was much discussion as to what properties a URN should and should
not have and the resulting fracas was in the best tradition of IETF
``consensus building''.
It was agreed that while some of the underlying data of particular
network objects changed (for example, a video feed), that the URN
associated with such an object would remain essentially the same.
However, the URNs for the underlying data would have to change as the
data changed.
Several suggestions for the type of information to be included in URNs
were discussed and it was decided that a final decision would be made at
the final session.
Discussion of Other Necessary Objects - Session 3
After canvassing several members of the Working Group, the session
started with a short presentation by one of the co-Chairs, Alan Emtage.
It was proposed that the URN have a very simple structure. In order to
be able to completely distinguish URNs from URLs the following structure
was proposed:
URN:<ID Authority>:<URS>
The string ``URN'' is part of the structure. <ID Authority> is the
unique identifier for the issuing authority. <URS> is the Uniform
Resource String which is unique (as determined by the ID Authority) for
that ID Authority. No assumptions may be made about the substructure of
the URS which is effectively opaque to any entity other than the ID
Authority. The ID Authority would be registered with the IANA to ensure
uniqueness.
3
This proposal was endorsed and the corresponding document would be
written by Alan Emtage, Jim Fullton and Chris Weider and submitted to
the mailing list as soon as possible. It is hoped that the document can
become an Internet-Draft at or before the Amsterdam meeting.
A presentation was made by Rob Raisch which suggested some revisions to
the above scheme.
Questions about architecture were raised and it was suggested that the
current draft architecture document from the Integration of Internet
Information Resources (IIIR) Working Group be consulted.
Further discussion illustrated the fact that the combination of URL &
URN would not be sufficient for an effective infrastructure since much
of the data needed by the user to determine desirability of an object
located through a search was not present in these structures. These
include such things as :
o Versioning
o Language
o Character Sets
o Representation (eg, PostScript, bitmaps, ASCII etc)
o A whole array of non-static/non-text attributes
Tim Berners-Lee, John Kunze and Michael Mealling made presentations as
to how to handle this ``meta data'' or ``factoids''.
It was decided that defining the semantics and syntax of these
attributes would take careful work and should be the focus of upcoming
meetings.
Attendees
Harald Alvestrand Harald.Alvestrand@delab.sintef.no
Jules Aronson aronson@nlm.nih.gov
Karl Auerbach karl@empirical.com
Paul Barker p.barker@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Robert Beer r-beer@onu.edu
Tim Berners-Lee timbl@info.cern.ch
Jodi-Ann Chu jodi@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
William Chung whchung@watson.ibm.com
David Conklin conklin@jvnc.net
James Conklin jbc@bitnic.educom.edu
Naomi Courter naomi@concert.net
John Curran jcurran@nic.near.net
Brent Curtiss bcurtiss@magnuss.ocs.ohio-state.edu
Mark Davis-Craig mad@merit.edu
Peter Deutsch peterd@bunyip.com
Thomas DeWitt tdewitt@osi.ncsl.nist.gov
Dale Dougherty dale@ora.com
Alan Emtage bajan@bunyip.com
4
Urs Eppenberger eppenberger@switch.ch
Roger Fajman raf@cu.nih.gov
Jill Foster Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk
Steven Foster foster@cs.unr.edu
Jim Fullton Jim.Fullton@cnidr.org
Kevin Gamiel kevin.gamiel@concert.net
Joan Gargano jcgargano@ucdavis.edu
Greg Gicale gicale@ohio.gov
Deborah Hamilton debbie@qsun.att.com
Susan Harris srh@umich.edu
Alisa Hata hata@cac.washington.edu
Russ Hobby rdhobby@ucdavis.edu
Ellen Hoffman ellen@merit.edu
Susan Horvath shorvath@merit.edu
Inna Il'yasova ilyasova@meg.uncg.edu
Erik Jul jul@oclc.org
Scott Kaplan scott@wco.ftp.com
Michael Khalandovsky mlk@ftp.com
John Klensin klensin@infoods.unu.edu
Jim Knowles jknowles@binky.arc.nasa.gov
Andrew Knutsen andrewk@sco.com
Edward Krol e-krol@uiuc.edu
John Kunze jak@violet.berkeley.edu
Ronald Lanning lanning@netltm.cats.ohiou.edu
Hock-Koon Lim lim@po.cwru.edu
Clifford Lynch calur@uccmvsa.ucop.edu
Bruce Mackey brucem@cinops.xerox.com
Samir Malak malaks@alice.uncg.edu
Gary Malkin gmalkin@xylogics.com
Janet L. Marcisak jlm@ftp.com
April Marine april@atlas.arc.nasa.gov
Ignacio Martinez martinez@rediris.es
Michael Mealling michael@fantasy.gatech.edu
Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Jim Naro jnaro@nic.near.net
Mark Needleman mhn@stubbs.ucop.edu
Clifford Neuman bcn@isi.edu
Bill Norton wbn@merit.edu
Masataka Ohta mohta@cc.titech.ac.jp
Geir Pedersen Geir.Pedersen@usit.uio.no
Pete Percival percival@indiana.edu
Charles Perkins perk@watson.ibm.com
Marsha Perrott mlp+@andrew.cmu.edu
Cecilia Preston cpreston@info.berkeley.edu
Robert Raisch raisch@ora.com
Joyce K. Reynolds jkrey@isi.edu
Francois Robitaille francois.robitaille@crim.ca
Richard Rodgers rodgers@nlm.nih.gov
Charlie Smith crsmith@osvi.edu
Jane Smith Jane.Smith@cnidr.org
Patricia Smith psmith@merit.edu
Sue Smith smiths.es.net
Karen Sollins sollins@lcs.mit.edu
Wayne Tackabury wayne@cayman.com
5
Matt Tuttle snodgras@cren.net
Ruediger Volk rv@informatik.uni-dortmund.de
Janet Vratny janet@apple.com
Chris Weider clw@merit.edu
Les Wibberley lhw24@cas.org
Richard Wiggins wiggins@msu.edu
6