nico at cryptonector.com
Fri May 23 09:40:16 PDT 2014
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:22 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 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.
>> 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.
And yet... How many xml2rfc users have resorted to keeping their own
bibxml mirrors because it's faster and/or more reliable that the IETF
bibxml server? I sure have, and I'm certain many others have.
You poopoo the idea of URNs without explanation, but you insist that
the infrastructure should just work, and yet it doesn't, while
mirroring has and does.
> Somebody also claimed that they don't want locators. I have to say I prefer
Me, quoted above.
> 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
Without a locator all you need is a set of base locations -- mirrors.
What's wrong with that?
> the "name" actually work seems to be hard, if not in theory then at least in
Not at all. xml2rfc should ship with the base locations for IETF's
bibxml service baked in, and it should allow local configuration of
alternate/additional/preferred base locations. How is that "hard"?
Harder than updating xml sources every time the IETF bibxml service
hiccups? Surely not!
More information about the rfc-interest