From: Martin Hamilton <M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <199402221210.MAA01511@lust.mrrl.lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: URN to URC scenario
To: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 12:10:36 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To: <CLLLI1.FyA@pandora.sf.ca.us> from "Mitra" at Feb 21, 94 11:34:49 pm
Mitra said:
$ 4) The client contacts the URN->URC service.
$
$ If we are to avoid mucking with the DNS, then the URN->URC service is
$ going to have to be on a registered port, talking a known protocol.
$
$ Currently the proposal is to use a subset of the whois++ protocol, but
$ sitting on a different port. The simplest query is of the form:
$
$ Client->Server: Template=URC;URN="urn:xxx/yyy:ABCD123456"
$
$ Server->Client: URN: urn:xxx/yyy:ABCD123456
$ Author: Mitra <mitra@path.net>
$ URL: gopher://path.net/00/papers/mitra/urn2urc
$ Format: Text/plain
$ URL: ftp://path.net/pub/docs/urn2urc.ps
$ Format: Application/postscript
In the context of the TXT RR method of discovering URN->UR* servers,
I don't think it matters much whether the eventual URN lookup returns
URCs or URLs.
A smart client could use the URC info, and a dumb one could just pick out
the URLs. NB I'm thinking about the URN lookup being something like a
WAIS/gopher/WWW/whois++/SOLO/... search.
How does that sound?
Martin