IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)

Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com> Tue, 20 May 2003 08:40 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03116 for <uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:40:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4K8A9P11545 for uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:10:09 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4K8A9B11542 for <uri-review-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:10:09 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03105 for <uri-review-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:40:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19I2hC-0002jN-00 for uri-review-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:42:06 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19I2hC-0002jK-00 for uri-review-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:42:06 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4K8A2B11530; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:10:02 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4K89nB11506 for <uri-review@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:09:49 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03077 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:39:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19I2gs-0002jH-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:41:46 -0400
Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19I2gs-0002jE-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 04:41:46 -0400
Received: from hplns3.hpl.hp.com (hplns3.hpl.hp.com [15.0.48.4]) by palrel10.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4D81C02534; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timothy-ob6k.hpl.hp.com (pal1nai160031.nsr.hp.com [15.244.160.31]) by hplns3.hpl.hp.com (8.11.1/8.10.2 HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id h4K8gok05013; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.1.20030520013400.02057e60@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
X-Sender: timothy@hplex1.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 01:42:43 -0700
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)'" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
From: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)
Cc: hardie@qualcomm.com, uri-review@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <000701c31be1$ce8d8ac0$19432099@MASINTERPAD>
References: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A06B739EA@elslonexc004.wins.epress.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

Hi Larry et al.

At 12:31 PM 5/16/2003 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
>For some URIs, there's no resolution
>service at all (such as with cid or mid or uuid) but only
>a promise of uniqueness. But if you're going to promise
>resolution, then the resolution needs to be defined.

There is a resolution service: mid and cid are principally for 
locating  content/messages from the id's; it's just that the spec doesn't 
define (much less mandate) the algorithm.

I'm confused about your reactions to tag and doi: so if we never mentioned 
a resolution service you'd be OK with them, but if we assert the existence 
of resolution services but deliberately don't specify them because that 
belongs elsewhere, you're not OK with them?

Cheers,

Tim.




Tim Kindberg
hewlett-packard laboratories
1501 page mill road, ms 1138
palo alto
ca 94304-1126
usa

purl.org/net/TimKindberg/home
timothy@hpl.hp.com
voice +1 650 857 5609
fax +1 650 857 2359

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email