Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/urn/urn-archives/urn-ietf.archive.9610/000038_owner-urn-ietf _Thu Oct 10 08:20:11 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1997-02-19 | 3KB

Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id IAA12118 for urn-ietf-out; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:20:11 -0400
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 IAA12113 for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:20:09 -0400
Received: from beethoven.Bunyip.Com by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
        id AA03649  (mail destined for [e-mail]); Thu, 10 Oct 96 08:20:08 -0400
Received: (leslie@localhost) by beethoven.bunyip.com (8.6.9/8.6.10) id IAA03411 for [e-mail]; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:20:07 -0400
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Leslie Daigle)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:20:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: Larry Masinter's message as of Oct  9, 19:16
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [WGC] Re: [URN] advantages of NAPTR over PURLs
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Leslie Daigle)
Errors-To: [e-mail]

Okay, I think this thread is starting to lose its focus.  It started off
using PURLs as an example to illustrate areas of the Framework that need to be
better documented.  A lot of good material has been generated on that
front.

But, as it has aged, it seems to have taken on more of the characteristics
of a debate about which "is better" -- PURLs or NAPTR-based URNs.

In fact, that's not what we are here to discuss.  We have on the table
a proposed approach to URNs -- the Framework -- and a first round
implementation of a system based on that approach -- NAPTR.  We should
discuss things to move those forward -- that is what we've been chartered
to do.

Since it now seems to have reached the stage where there is more about
NAPTR-vs-PURL, and less about What should the Framework say, I believe
it is time for this thread to be stopped, and material generated thus
far will be addressed in a revision of the Framework document.
If anyone has specific issues relating to the Framework _document_,
that's fine.  If people still have things they wish to get off their
chests on the subject of PURLs-as-URNs, I would appreciate it very much
if they could sort out the details off-line, and bring back to the list
whatever is generated in terms of concrete proposals for the Framework.


Thanks!
Leslie.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  "The light at the end of the tunnel             Leslie Daigle
     is often the blindingly obvious..."          Vice President, Research
                                                  Bunyip Information Systems
                      -- ThinkingCat              [phone]
                                                  [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------