Subject: Re: CNRP URI ABNF

From: Nicolas Popp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:00:47 -0700

That's clearly not necessary, but since HTTP will be the preferred and
required implementation, having a path in the URI makes sense (again it is
convenient, not necessary).

-Nico

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mealling [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 2:34 PM
To: Nicolas Popp
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: CNRP URI ABNF

On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Nicolas Popp wrote:
> Is not the path a desirable convenience for CNRP service operators since
for
> the HTTP transport that the protocol requires, it would translate directly
> into the Web server path (e.g. cgi-bin/CNRPResolver )?

While it might be needed by the transport I don't think its required by
CNRP.
I also might expect that CNRP would be on a seperate port number making it
a seperate HTTP server for many operators. I.e. it may be necessary for
the HTTP transport but is it a necessary part of the CNRP URI?

-MM

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Michael Mealling        |      Vote Libertarian!       |
www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:
14198821
Network Solutions       |          www.lp.org          |
[email-masked]