Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 16:22:47 -800 (PDT)
From: Mitra <mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Re: A couple of comments for the list...
To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
In-Reply-To: <9402242335.AA12964@expresso.bunyip.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9402241657.F1599-0100000@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Peter
I have to disagree on a lot of what you said.
I think people didnt sign on to URL's because they were not frozen EARLY
enough, we know that was the case with Gopher, and WAIS and Prospero
would probably have used real URL's instead of their own if they had been
frozen. By waiting we ensure that the "U" in URL is meaningless and end
up with competing - incompatible schemes.
On the question of multiple access protocols, again I couldnt disagree
more - I dont care nearly as much whether its DNS, Whos++, or HTTP as I
care that there is one and only one protocol used to resolve URN->URC's.
No way am I going to implement all three, I guess other client writers
will do one of two things, either a) implement nothing until its settled,
or b) implement their own protocol, for use only within their own system,
and ignore the IETF.
The IETF - as I see it - is supposed to be in the business of putting
together protocols and standards, so that implementers can build
interoperable applications - we dont need another three years of waffling
while we argue between marginally different versions of the same thing.
- Mitra