Re: [Uri-review] URI resolution questions

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 17:09 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 C94A23A0D0B for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:09:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, 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 5S3CHrpN9JC7 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BB543A0D3B for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxusgaltgw10.schlund.de ([10.72.72.56]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M4q55-1jLASK0sGb-00yz06; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:09:37 +0100
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:09:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
Reply-To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1285517896.32083.1582823376975@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <01a901d5ed0f$02d8e980$088abc80$@acm.org>
References: <1404861506.56788.1582761910043@email.ionos.com> <01a901d5ed0f$02d8e980$088abc80$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev27
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:d14+B9GPXp5jEeuTQBkj2jbqKTTcHuEWLyEApp0wb5PAAdQ76XK mhLUVZSNyRNxxpLM+U1flRq9wRqys+T7hb2ekunn0j0cYmsJbwprQ1PXiO1/zR1fBHCGSDh EYFT5POLerq2GfObrfQnfut2VkTFgJXssGdyMowL+7DLsZ7QnsJwTPxHM8MDy6hDO/otnDn OpAkpJKy0EpEWV9YYIRXw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:q3cEGz2KGGQ=:PSp1YayBYzwcm0+FjZP7yf U5M69anavkqzaNz+IgR+T7Ts18p8mwBpjhO+22mJ9UzpYQQ7gWsb0IQiRL7x5GqFh4zkC1+ir gAm9726RQ5jj11auv9fig2g6juXQfcrG/JNjOMete87DkoIzpDYuALTkDXuGIDx5NDSpfhOgA dViEaWImV4A+MuOfJ3icV1TBWo+QvY4ACJckDA068JEatNeDyhj2N1oYp9Wh/q3Jfh2CGfpXh VGSfieonO+g817oVTtR8MGMFUIAj5aQ9mmaJjMNcxZxo9+cS9ouC2CKDCYCWiDbSgHwThB9dW r7OzCT9MjXXtDWt36hM3IQrcuoj/a57QOE4fCaD9+BFrL1PKK3rkUl0byQyK0ERZE7jYfdJR3 th/7xZoINfE8g0FciMTAlo76WLAuqK3WA0Bz7NXrHtlTHZ79ND1u3HrDoqMi5l19qGQ3JogBf d8AqRV9Tvk823m23vVSoXfdpvhW2v9Ite9PLGBOIDPD9XWbbUMpRWgeNZwsdeXQzTnuDT5UVO vNNN0eXNnA1u8ATie0n1QFfJX7n3gxrT5sOZp028axTgDZ+j5AYqk40Q3vvYlYMTRHZr38Zqs OBRKRRN3sH85VFJlSmjcvJzcQbaKLRMDVXiMUjTShQzIEKWEdS/o7EL20OXPfaFdwDsVyLGdm 4LVRXOqDZ00tUDfYSivQAE9GemwDvb3d81zA28JBcDu87kxH+kNuJqeXMHs9Gv7r+AgXmyCRm yQU1ma+ZdgcX8uMOLtztsqzVsB1TSEJ+ViNu8/C6JphJ9W1u/UzfLgSRD2qhP2aVRMsgX0JhR oc2t2nm31bH3adN7+WoWyvc/5iZjmEojiEU9+8Q42ISOCYU+5vi/5OCxPyHepSRcscCgkVa
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/Iv3JnwWlnlFE9HNygzkv2uwhQkk>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI resolution questions
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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:09:48 -0000

Hi Larry, 

If "example:123456" is my application unique string (RFC 3402 section 3) and the first well known rule is applied, the output being the key example.uri.arpa.  At this point what has happened to the "123456"?   I am assuming that at this point nothing has happened to the "123456" because the DDDS application is now asking for rules to apply which are located in the NAPTR record at example.uri.arpa....is that correct? 
On February 26, 2020 at 8:41 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:

Uh… I can’t make sense of your question


From: Uri-review <uri-review-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Timothy Mcsweeney
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 4:05 PM
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: [Uri-review] URI resolution questions


Hello All,

It was generously suggested that I may get some questions answered here about URI resolution so here it goes:


If I have a scheme name and a string like "example:123456" and the the string will be used for further processing by a second NAPTR , would I want to use the I2Rs mnemonic with a "p" flag in the first NAPTR? 


 And in this scenario, if the answer to the query of the second NAPTR is terminal , does the answer go back to where the first query originated from?


What happens to the string during the resolution process?  


I have been trying to set up a test environment for this but have not yet been successful so any tips/tricks, or tools would be greatly appreciated.


Tim