IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Sun, 24 May 2020 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@dropnumber.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4273A0AE5 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Efa95infOa9V for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 08:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) (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 9E35B3A0AE2 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 08:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxusgaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.72.49]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MQy1w-1jSXJX3xAk-00UGES for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 17:53:05 +0200
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 11:53:05 -0400
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
Reply-To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1426881880.158099.1590335585858@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <5ECA8A94.23977.101292FE@dan.tobias.name>
References: <491516506.246380.1589851279474@email.ionos.com>, <5EC9B257.31362.CC5E003@dan.tobias.name>, <1783049000.100771.1590323508943@email.ionos.com> <5ECA8A94.23977.101292FE@dan.tobias.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev31
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:tk2HsWA4HqqhIpq+rpPZhndkIOPIuzXaStJbx8PHliJBBU/6Yg9 BgLQf2lj+Cy9gPIp8BCTOXOt1NKLfDTFtAF68b255vpGF2pYsnInICb8K97UcCNjcAC7UeT ppdF2GH9uWoWOknRvSoYIWWVXdGxMV+YMS/laHPUpPWB0PkbouG5rLObEkqvYmQT0ql5QdP D82mu5JQKPm+FuWASUCyQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Pns1s/QSCs8=:kXFQtSJEfMTwoz0VypsHEL l4BhgCNcMgT68H/E8EOl7UNWfN/otHkxP/5aC8CqpYApjBCU1/j1gZMjbI53vNrqTNqpbwj1T IQYKnEo8lBmfJDSwHxe7hrKDiZoXwcDdZMn/XBO+LSzaAtbXnu244/2fS/XyTtYv2XRArKsP7 TPp5VXXo6OpUdd63UPjRPcBVZEDEjRN00j7iOvO18EfT8QhBHXHOSwrGLZRV8buPlHa5++IFP ur2KMm43qJqDIF5Yf/b0mQIBxykaTJpkeFyZJdaQhXClyVo9a+95xHR8d545GBSNVAOpA/KFg sTXzsLIRi5hU//xNndOlS1bCd23QinDY+DwY5RQjNwV8bGFsAm4ZzIPh4bubQZCFWHHHEcgae EZp60v/6+DTJlptUKMhTcFlD+5o1WnejiwfIgqaK+9rqqioFTxyrBfwkfUOWtYF8r7XDbz6L9 Yw0A8bQbrYqSHxaYL5ukCaU+RhUaaT/Xo+ICFZ5sL1l1VY0B+636Org1LeHQU8p+b9U9NbkIB wq2GNmJUtA39p/o5D/P57F32WgU/+DB6FGxOofYILmQutwxz5Q9/osVDxJrvObZU0JNXa0Mv8 hsjaVA4Cyafj9EnoNhyTgRpd2XtTt6ilchIytZ+ujYKWMkd6fprui1e4cg8dojFxjkmGWF4iR jGbefZ0a42KWGRSlCWcHY23Q/ZtJxzRdEoQiHg2zj792iu3CiOONZB5mnqgy0drirlCLXa8LJ Mh1pPRxdoZiDjVG93BeMARJWSydjhHMMUcyugN9YVT7gBWD4myUzCsyJ6mu+uwhtNwxxjii3h 21FBnE4h+KvU01upOnb45MjvGwtnq5lpcYwj5RTeeng+QxCm0ZvdqslPvKtmq5veyVWEsEq
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/AfghNPasKk9pUH0BgssfzNPYccA>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uri-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 15:53:08 -0000

Hi Dan,

Yes, I agree and understand that the same way as you.   But when the "#" leaves the client it is not leaving as a fragment, it is leaving as a way to separate the URI components, <scheme> and <path> or for http it would be separating <scheme> and <authority>.  It is this that makes me believe that even if the colon is required for http resolution, it is not necessarily required for all URI.

Tim  


On May 24, 2020 at 10:54 AM "Daniel R. Tobias" < dan@tobias.name> wrote:


On 24 May 2020 at 8:31, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:

For the browser example, it is going to leave the client as
'drop#fg234' but come back to the client as 'fg234.dropexample.com'. 
As I understand it, fragment identifiers don't leave the client, but
are used when processing the returned data from the server at the
client side.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/" rel="noopener nofollow">http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/" rel="noopener nofollow">http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/" rel="noopener nofollow">http://domains.dan.info/


_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email