Thank you very much Martin for your review, and Richard for the quick responses and your interest in correcting issues.
I expect a new version of the draft is needed for the string issue. Jari On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:57 PM, Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Wendy gave a good summary on the reasoning of not using URIs. We are > wondering if you may have some additional comments so that we can address. > Thank you so much! > > Richard > > On Jan 27, 2014 11:16 AM, "Wendy Roome" <[email protected]> wrote: > Here’s my response for “why resource ids instead of uris”: > > An “ALTO Server” is a collection of services provided by a provider. That > provider may distribute these services over several different physical > servers, and that distribution may change over time. If we used URIs to > identify those services, the IDs would have to change whenever the provider > redistributed services. > > Therefore we defined “Resource IDs” as persistent, location-independent, IDs > for those services. Resource IDs must be unique, but only within the context > of one provider’s services — that is, the services defined by the tree of > IRDs reachable from a root IRD. That IRD tree maps those Resource IDs to > URIs, and allows the provider to change the mapping without disrupting > clients. Thus ALTO Resource IDs are relative to the URI of the provider’s IRD > tree. If a provider had to use globally unique, location-dependent URIs, > instead of location-independent relative IDs, the provider would have an > unnecessary administrative burden. > > (Yes, I know “URIs”, unlike URLs, are supposed to be “location independent.” > But let’s face reality: that only works if there’s some higher level mapping > of URIs to locations. For all practical purposes, “URI” means host-specific > “URL”.) > > Another way to look at it is that “Resource IDs” are like using relative > addresses within a web page. They make it easier to move a tree of related > pages from one host to another. > > - Wendy Roome > > From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, January 26, 2014 at 16:40 > To: Martin Thomson <[email protected]> > Cc: "N:" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, Richard Alimi <[email protected]>, "Reinaldo Penno, > (repenno)" <[email protected]>, Wendy Roome <[email protected]>, > Sebastian Kiesel <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-alto-protocol-25 > > > Section 10.2 defines a resource ID. Why do this when you could use > URIs? After all, that's what URIs are for. I realize that this would > be something of a major change to the protocol, but I think that the > question is particularly important. > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
