Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 17:19:57 -0700
From: jak@violet.berkeley.edu (John A. Kunze)
Message-Id: <199408090019.RAA22058@violet.berkeley.edu>
To: bajan@bunyip.com, erik.huizer@surfnet.nl, sollins@lcs.mit.edu,
Subject: Re: submission of revision of URN req doc
> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 94 22:44:28 -0400
> From: "Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>
>
> I have submitted another draft of the URN requirements doc to become
> an internet draft. In order to be consistent with other file naming, ...
Indirectly related to the file name is the document name, and it's broken
I think. I've said it before, but here's one last time:
The title, "Requirements for Uniform Resource Names", paints us into
a corner. Apparently we're silent on all the Resource Naming specs
that might meet our requirements, unless they're also called "URN".
So if we get two wonderful specs tomorrow for XRNs and YRNs, will we
simply ignore them? Of course not.
But we can't apply our list of requirements because we've jumped the gun
by deciding in advance that the spec will describe something called a URN.
It's a little like pretending to have an open hiring process when you already
know who you're giving the job to. Of course, there's no deviousness here,
but just a little collective mental laziness.
-John