[art] Question regarding RFC 6570
Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> Thu, 02 August 2018 04:19 UTC
Return-Path: <poccil14@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E12130DD5; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 21:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ERkrfAbDO2pI; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 21:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22e.google.com (mail-yb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83F5112F1A6; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 21:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id s1-v6so349358ybk.3; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 21:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:mime-version:to:cc:from:subject:date:importance :in-reply-to:references; bh=G+4IzNa2amBi6nqfmwfCPw9nw30VmdsHWpzQ6zIhnNs=; b=UTe+fxM+2Gk3IfMvXtwbSzAc0t300hoI4fHX2k4glpFU4Z/4Kqr/+YHW50tu4DNQYO RDCxL7VX2lf1RGnEjcIFHsbsJn3c3A6mgMeBblBXRD4TLxIVRmFvrqG+e252I6yaBi1K JkmJ600mBUMAH/Qi/ROUft3qh4d1ToBmkZGj5h6uMM1m4mWdP04GY8ItEBvuFp87yFsO ohFBzwXFIGCOECKTX55bKm+VcoN39N04omU9L19onRZid7N1zb9isTD1iR6FrqRDYKKv YQQBHa1Z5RqIyY90kD/RZNY+kVbC2FdXK4WtQuc5njMrfUyvruCNQVxOPVHN5qDamUu9 dFMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version:to:cc:from:subject:date :importance:in-reply-to:references; bh=G+4IzNa2amBi6nqfmwfCPw9nw30VmdsHWpzQ6zIhnNs=; b=ioLu1E6ar+vSXgDjhJK8IztgvhBzyDr6SJkIQxEhcNRMpn1ne4wa0daQfzqX8keySh BZ9XmrwOfSEpvG1b5E3ZpBYOc+gsUrNVgY5HRMTf+qYnwjDh+LKY1Oqt0H//76dL4alO Pk0eS8hAxHerzLC0RtSnfbUkp2P4yCUDofDSnCjZLxpHjPvJ4ll8dQ7LLUF1SZPsBsKE 9WiSA9YRMDggR9j0YoGZbHRqqj90KMaHzS5NFqA9QqMCqlnqbyvSkbpHDV572/OdDAjL Mv23gg6bGB/AUjmW+TkIigmE1MrB1ReQkXBSwaxPyzSrplkbf8t98ErWStqRtXaKJ586 Vc6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGd3Qz6F8WFz5e5C/g0kOB8rLQSVUFVteveMD/8uLI7ezmYSY6A m84rjLcYe4P4fbfllhwa268Q+XWa
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfJldcTJdh4peQemf+fiey86b25wUm8CeslYDdi2fyTXJdDrhYjvQM7iYMvMhA6zfQ6YLOtsg==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d116:: with SMTP id i22-v6mr576884ybg.78.1533183571534; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 21:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:192:4e00:596:3097:9786:ccbb:3fb6? ([2601:192:4e00:596:3097:9786:ccbb:3fb6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g16-v6sm167064ywe.11.2018.08.01.21.19.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Aug 2018 21:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5b628653.1c69fb81.fb5d.0ed3@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:19:31 -0400
Importance: normal
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <5b6285d3.1c69fb81.d95f3.81ba@mx.google.com>
References: <5b6285d3.1c69fb81.d95f3.81ba@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_460AB944-2D4C-40D0-9713-C87328DD35EF_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/1UahRJ2ZP50Y20Q-GY4cbe31kDw>
Subject: [art] Question regarding RFC 6570
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 04:19:34 -0000
(Sorry, I meant to send this message to the ART mailing list.)
It seems that the URI Templates document (RFC 6570) doesn't sufficiently clarify the behavior with variable values with well-formed pct-encoded components.
Take the following variable names and their values:
pctat2 := "a%42"
pctat3 := "ab%43"
pctat0 := "%42ab"
For the purpose of variable expansion, are valid pct-encoded components in the variable value first decoded before appending the string? (The only example in the document with "%", "half", included an ill-formed pct-encoded component.) And given the definitions above, how are the following templates expanded?
{pctat2}
{pctat2:2}
{pctat2:3}
{pctat2:4}
{pctat3:3}
{pctat3:4}
{pctat0:1}
{pctat0:2}
{pctat0:3}
(For example, is the first template given expanded to "aB" or "a%42"? Is the second template expanded to "a", "aB", "a%42", "a%", or something else?)
- Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 6570 Peter Occil
- [art] Question regarding RFC 6570 Peter Occil