Re: Stab in the dark

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: Omy Ronquillo: "Group Annotations"
• Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Updated URI test suite; resolving some issues... "
• Maybe in reply to: Martin Hamilton: "Re: Stab in the dark"
• Reply: Dave Raggett: "Re: Stab in the dark"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:14:24 --100
Message-id: <94Mar17.150931pst.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Stab in the dark
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 785

Any scheme which embeds a 'location' in a URN is really begging the
question; URNs need to be location independent, and in general, the
lifetime of a URN needs to be longer than the lifetime of the DNS
entry of the original author.

It is possible that using DNS to implement some part of URN -> URL
resolution can be made to work, but not if you tie the ownership of
URN name entry to the ownership of the locations that go with it.

I'm worried a bit about authority in these URN resolution schemes;
you'd like the URN to be secure (in that someone couldn't spoof
urn:/us/government/whitehouse/speeches/clinton/9-10-93/a and supplant
it with some other document).

I don't think we've yet addressed the security aspects of URNs,
although I believe there ARE security requirements.