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.9703 / 000061_owner-urn-ietf _Wed Mar 26 19:12:13 1997.msg < prev    next >
Internet Message Format  |  1997-04-01  |  3KB
  1. Received: (from daemon@localhost)
  2.     by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA05122
  3.     for urn-ietf-out; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:12:13 -0500 (EST)
  4. Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1])
  5.     by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA05117
  6.     for <urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:12:10 -0500 (EST)
  7. Received: from beethoven.Bunyip.Com by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
  8.         id AA03515  (mail destined for urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com); Wed, 26 Mar 97 19:12:09 -0500
  9. Received: from localhost (leslie@localhost) by beethoven.bunyip.com (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id TAA12693; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:12:08 -0500
  10. X-Authentication-Warning: beethoven.bunyip.com: leslie owned process doing -bs
  11. Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:12:08 -0500 (EST)
  12. From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@Bunyip.Com>
  13. To: "Jul,Erik" <jul@oclc.org>
  14. Cc: urn-ietf@bunyip.com
  15. Subject: RE: [URN] draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt
  16. In-Reply-To: <1997Mar26.164432.1083.906836@msunion.dev.oclc.org>
  17. Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970326190126.12685B-100000@beethoven.bunyip.com>
  18. Mime-Version: 1.0
  19. Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
  20. Sender: owner-urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com
  21. Precedence: bulk
  22. Reply-To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@Bunyip.Com>
  23. Errors-To: owner-urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com
  24.  
  25. On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Jul,Erik wrote:
  26. > Much of this document seems unenforceable to me.   Examples below.
  27.  
  28. Some key points to bear  in mind:
  29.  
  30.     1.  This is draft 00
  31.  
  32.     2.  This is about what it takes to define a new URN  namespace,
  33.         not what it takes to set up and run a resolver for an
  34.         existing one
  35.  
  36.     3.  If we are unlucky, this is about as difficult and subjective as 
  37.         iTLDs.  "Enforcement" will require judgement.
  38.  
  39. When we discussed this before, it was suggested that one avenue is to define 
  40. new URN namespaces through the use of RFCs (like the URL-scheme definition 
  41. process).  This document is a step towards providing guidelines to judging and 
  42. framing those RFC-efforts.
  43.  
  44. > By whom?  When?  How?  According to what standard?  Where stored?   By whom? 
  45. >  for how long?  How accessed?  At what cost?  Who bears cost?  How 
  46. > transferred?  How modified?  Who needs to know?  Why?  What will they do 
  47. > with it?
  48.  
  49. An excellent list of questions...  draft-00 has already begun doing its
  50. job :-)
  51.  
  52. Leslie.
  53.  
  54.  
  55.  
  56. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  57.  
  58.   "_Be_                                           Leslie Daigle
  59.              where  you                           
  60.                           _are_."                 Bunyip Information Systems
  61.                                                   (514) 875-8611
  62.                       -- ThinkingCat              leslie@bunyip.com
  63. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  64.