Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 12:50:33 -700 (PST)
From: Mitra <mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution
To: Michael Mealling <ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199404271908.AA02002@oit.gatech.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9404271205.R19292-0100000@pandora.sf.ca.us>
On Wed, 27 Apr 1994, Michael Mealling wrote:
> Mitra said this:
> > We seem to be deanling with two seperate questions here, I'd like to see
> > if we have agreement on this, so that we could push forward on them
> > seperately.
> > Question 1: What does a URC look like, what CAN it contain, and how is
> > it formatted.
> > Question 2: In the case of a URN->URC resolution service, what SHOULD a
> > URC contain, how will it get used, how will we find the resolution
> > service etc.
> I would break 2 down into
> a) which service
> b) How to find that service.
Two breaks down into lots of seperate issues, I'm mostly trying to split
off the format issues in Q1.
>
> The part about what SHOULD a URC contain seems to me like it should
> also go into #1 or maybe even a seperate problem.
Its not part of 1, its part of 2, i.e. what gets returned by a URN->URC
service,
> > go on to consider the different proposals for URC format (RFC822 style,
> > lisp style, SGML style and Windows .ini format), in parrallel to the
> > discussion of resoltuion services.
>
> I can't tell if you were serious or not about the windows.ini format
> but it was still funny. I agree with the idea but I expect everyone
> will still talk about this stuff as one whole problem. I'll try and
> seperate out my discussions of each.
I'm not serious about it - Kevin is ! - I'll let him try and defend it.
> As an aside: are you planning on rolling whois++ specific stuff into
> your resolution paper or is that out of it's scope? If not then I'm
> going to add it to my new(er) URC implementation draft....
I'd roll it in, if someone could articulate the specifics required for
resolution, as opposed to having to implement the whole of whois++
- Mitra