Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id EAA07587 for urn-ietf-out; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 04:10:27 -0500
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 EAA07582 for <urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 04:10:25 -0500
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Received: from domen.uninett.no by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
id AA03277 (mail destined for urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com); Fri, 8 Nov 96 04:10:19 -0500
Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP)
id <03924-0@domen.uninett.no>; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:08:35 +0100
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96
To: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Cc: leslie@bunyip.com (Leslie Daigle),
"Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@LCS.MIT.EDU>, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: [URN] some comments
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Nov 1996 09:18:17 CST." <199611071518.JAA05599@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 10:08:31 +0100
Message-Id: <3920.847444111@domen.uninett.no>
Sender: owner-urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Errors-To: owner-urn-ietf@bunyip.com
liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu said:
> Had I known we were going to be held to the details of the charter, I
> would have spoken up at that time. But, honestly, would it have
> mattered?
You would certainly have gotten feedback, which might have led you
to not bringing up this question now. I don't know if the charter would
have changed.
liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu said:
> But my whole point is that *because* the supposed difference between
> URLs and URNs (the identifiers, not the resolution mechanisms) does
> not exist, it is irrelevant to creating a solution, except for syntax
> and other arbitrary constraints.
The status quo is that unless the URN WG is able to do something about it,
URLs are all that exist, and people will do what they have to do with them.
So if you're right, you win by default.
liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu said:
> >One of the things that we have to do, unfortunately, to get a
> >solution to that limited problem, is to ask those who want to work on
> >a different problem to leave.
> So it has come to that, eh? As I've stated, we'll continue the
> discussion off-line. But are you saying we shouldn't bother?
No reason to go off-line; I suggest the former URI WG's list as a nice
place to discuss the meta-issue of whether URNs are the right thing or not.
If, in some other forum, the participants in this forum agree that what
they are doing here won't work - fine; I'm sure I'll hear about it.
But here - we are discussing how to make them work, and discussions on
whether they are the right thing or not are not appropriate.
liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu said:
> You should know that many experiments turn into standard practice.
> If you want it to really be "just an experiment", perhaps you should
> consider finding a way to kill it off afterwards so it doesn't escape
> from the lab. :-)
In the case of NAPTR, there's a simple way: Remove the urn.net domain
from the root nameservers :-)
But if it becomes standard practice, the experiment kind of succeeded,