To:
Harald@Alvestrand.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand)
Cc:
mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp, namedroppers@internic.net, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Wed, 29 Sep 99 8:19:14 JST
In-Reply-To:
<4.2.0.58.19990928120527.00cb09a0@dokka.maxware.no>; from "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" at Sep 28, 99 12:10 pm
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: IANA, DNS names, URL names...
Harald; > 4) The same argument (if I understand it) applies to well known port numbers, > protocol numbers and most other IANA registries. Yup. > 1) Your draft does not mention the URL name space Of course. URL name space is no special that it is not necessary to mention. > 4) The same argument (if I understand it) applies to well known port numbers, > protocol numbers and most other IANA registries. Do you think these > functions too are pointless? It seems to me that you are saying that registration of URL names shoule be identical to that of well known port numbers and most other IANA registries. I agree with you, then. > 3) I disagree with you that URL scheme registration is pointless. URL scheme registration is fine. URL scheme registration scheme, which is totally different from that of well known port numbers, is pointless. > What's your point? URLREG WG is pointless. We don't need TCPPORTREG WG. Masataka Ohta