Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI

Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl> Tue, 08 February 2005 21:50 UTC

Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:34:45 +0100
From: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>
Subject: Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI
In-reply-to: <20050208183233.GC10858@jabberwocky.com>
To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org
Message-id: <20050208213445.GA56118@phantom.vanrein.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
References: <20050207105021.GA17950@phantom.vanrein.org> <3c14e78650fa58b06576b2e617409837@callas.org> <874qgnqryp.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <20050208183233.GC10858@jabberwocky.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Florian,

> > Back then, the URI *identified* a resource, but this doesn't make much
> > sense in the OpenPGP context (were fingerprints are used to identify
> > keys).  The keyserver location is just that, a location.
> > 
> > The URI terminology has changed since then.
> 
> If URI doesn't mean what it used to, does it then make sense to change
> both the keyserver and policy URLs to URIs?

Yes, please specify.  We don't want this to end up in a sort of FUD against
URIs.  To the best of my knowledge, it's all really simple, as summarised
here:

http://rick.vanrein.org/blog/notes/urn-uri-url.2005-02-07-13-53.article

Best,
-Rick

Policy URL -> Policy URI Rick van Rein
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI Jon Callas
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI Rick van Rein
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI Rick van Rein
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI Florian Weimer
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI David Shaw
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI Rick van Rein
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI Florian Weimer
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI David Shaw
Re: Policy URL -> Policy URI Rick van Rein