"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Fri May 23 00:22:45 PDT 2014
I fully agree with Dave and Julian here.
On 2014/05/23 07:16, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/22/2014 3:09 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> Not really. I explicitly don't want URLs. I want something where
>> location is NOT part of the URI. That makes it a URN.
> Now that this thread has iterated on the theory which justifies the term
Yes, URNs would work if they would work. The theory (i.e. specs) are out
there, although of course not everybody agrees with all aspects of the
theory. But there are things like DNS entries and other stuff (the most
important, but probably the last if ever to arrive being support in
browsers) that are missing.
> perhaps there can be attention paid to the underlying concern that
> has been expressed (at least twice) about having the string be... well,
> ummm, you know... useful.
Yes, that's indeed the problem. Somebody early in the thread claimed
that we need better reliability. Well, I'd think we at the IETF should
be perfectly able to provide better reliability. All it takes is
distributed DNS servers and distributed HTTP servers. Not rocket science.
Somebody also claimed that they don't want locators. I have to say I
prefer a "locator" where I can get the stuff to a "name" where I can't
get the stuff, every time. Making the "locator" reliable is easy (see
above). Making the "name" actually work seems to be hard, if not in
theory then at least in practice.
More information about the rfc-interest