Re: [Uri-review] URI resolution questions

Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> Thu, 27 February 2020 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@gmail.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 C87673A0DAA for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 E5zIRr8uLSRq for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (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 F13573A0BE3 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id a14so552766pgb.11 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:41:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=kw7jVza78AaCGnYX3pkrUT/tdu1avK0x2+CQ66P5Sf4=; b=fl4gYbS2psaUKtvYT9KABFiroT4ztWWT/8UfrVD70bWCmpUDX22R8mOT78SBmLMY3E lvLktdYkquaSi2TOy7QOm8yRzOhCKTUflJA9IRJw6b+0lxgs54rzVDIukLEsOuW6eTS+ 09EBKfB4r6RaQ9YbuvKjqQ6/1QBLyTezSFGwQkGHNTj+ng4aUPO6CxObnTXJxTaChWhL 0EHrDo6UV2eSShP2hC6SVMKUhZgKekh6t4TYV3wdoDZwXC9oVFt4QOaleJmFuxsCeX+Z gmAg2cGYvv92G86IkmLF8baoJJKb5COJ0iZqH5v6mNlqMpvyb8Z+uPXA4FF9ThggE/j8 sSpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=kw7jVza78AaCGnYX3pkrUT/tdu1avK0x2+CQ66P5Sf4=; b=TL7Xyg5sRJw66a1xWUpK2IhLyQ5JK7I+s+phna0iy6/qiaHyeFWGWum9pjmEUP18y4 W7qbxZmvkda7YLPL7iTTMYwskdVogmDWe1Af3lEamsHc96JqO6ivR/k1WQRrnmkA3nlP BbPv+OeqHLL7AX0si9VV+cVnRhzDdMpkwj3GbjbSXjBUsWhS8nBDE9geQNkCf8CwhMyi xe9gZyAQwrtAuxzDQfcseU83Y3PvmBMvfHbCYGncHefuA2QSBEfxOc5tiuS+KecxiJHy j7sGc71D+YDBnNy71nzuWQbxWOLn/fy4zgjzScqQRerQAT/ODTZRLPUAP46Gz9iYUAUt xTrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV/cN6B6Y2u/eh0Ef5sHU3SCYYpzyvfs9sYsi9J7ecPzh4X8llw aH/l6MDInM5QGfdwZ3vfXXHo1oMn
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzivqpL4VVTePAVWK9/mP09j7Gq13x9YXS9ygbZaRsgwqiTDSjT6nxLO0TzwI4jmoQe5ZFAiA==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9ec9:: with SMTP id r9mr1602181pfq.85.1582767681205; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TVPC (c-67-169-101-78.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.101.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c188sm4497692pfb.151.2020.02.26.17.41.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Larry Masinter <masinter@gmail.com>
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <lmm@acm.org>
To: "'Timothy Mcsweeney'" <tim@dropnumber.com>, <uri-review@ietf.org>
References: <1404861506.56788.1582761910043@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <1404861506.56788.1582761910043@email.ionos.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:41:19 -0800
Message-ID: <01a901d5ed0f$02d8e980$088abc80$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01AA_01D5ECCB.F4B5F7A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQIrpoFcKntCSB6gSAJ6KnXR+vWz56eC0DLg
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/OaN7opPnFyoY5sndm7lmIysGuPU>
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 01:41:24 -0000

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