Thoughts on Standardizing URN Resolution Protocols
draft-ietf-uri-urn-res-thoughts-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(candidate for uribof WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dr. Karen R. Sollins | ||
| Last updated | 1995-06-26 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | WG state | Call For Adoption By WG Issued | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The problem of standardizing URN resolution needs to be thought through carefully. If we partition the problem of name resolution, it becomes clearer that the user to resolution service interaction should be standardized. In contrast, in order to support a variety of models, behaviors, and other policies for name resolution services, we must allow for a multiplicity of such services, each perhaps requiring a different protocol between its servers. The URI group can still limit its efforts, but should support more than one such service as a proof of concept that multiple service types can be supported.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)