home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ Internet Info 1997 December / Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso / ietf / urn / urn-archives / urn-ietf.archive.9608 / 000031_owner-urn-ietf _Tue Aug 27 12:25:25 1996.msg < prev    next >
Internet Message Format  |  1997-02-19  |  2KB
  1. Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA20302 for urn-ietf-out; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:25:25 -0400
  2. Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA20297 for <urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:25:23 -0400
  3. Received: from newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
  4.         id AA06240  (mail destined for urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com); Tue, 27 Aug 96 12:25:21 -0400
  5. Received: from void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (void.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.103.20]) by newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.6.11/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25654; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:25:15 -0500
  6. Received: by void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (4.1/NCSA-4.1)
  7.     id AA06144; Tue, 27 Aug 96 11:21:34 CDT
  8. Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 11:21:34 CDT
  9. From: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
  10. Message-Id: <9608271621.AA06144@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
  11. To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
  12. Cc: urn-ietf@bunyip.com
  13. Subject: Re: [URN] NAPTR "wizards"
  14. In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960827160003.006b9c68@acl.lanl.gov>
  15. References: <2.2.32.19960827160003.006b9c68@acl.lanl.gov>
  16. Sender: owner-urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com
  17. Precedence: bulk
  18. Reply-To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
  19. Errors-To: owner-urn-ietf@bunyip.com
  20.  
  21. Ron Daniel writes:
  22.  > Actually, at the BOF in Montreal, we explicitly said that URNs are not
  23.  > going to solve the friendly naming problem.
  24.  
  25. I wasn't there, so I don't know, but I would guess this is a bit
  26. strong.  Rather, URNs are not *necessarily* going to solve the
  27. friendly naming problem.  In other words, the system supported by
  28. NAPTR-based resolution could be used to support friendly names, but
  29. doing so is beyond the scope of the URN problem, which is unique
  30. names.  I would be opposed to a system which made it more difficult
  31. than necessary to allow unique names to also be friendly.
  32.  
  33. --
  34. Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
  35. National Center for Supercomputing Applications
  36. http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/
  37.