IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] URI resolution questions

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 15:59 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 35AAD3A08B2 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 07:59:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.794
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 Oj76J_roNceX for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 07:59:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) (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 C840F3A0420 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 07:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.76.59]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MEGhK-1kWK1A459M-00FTDy; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:59:29 +0100
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 10:59:28 -0500
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <901501952.9965.1605110368595@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <1285517896.32083.1582823376975@email.ionos.com>
References: <1404861506.56788.1582761910043@email.ionos.com> <01a901d5ed0f$02d8e980$088abc80$@acm.org> <1285517896.32083.1582823376975@email.ionos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev26
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:DJ2c6pS7kVUhYRgpeqKfenBWwZjmZEVUulbtiw+L0qkOB/67+50 3qKXi7tc0CRiU+UGteHHoL9Ysnp50gStbklgdjWjkWrtv84Gtk7cTMZw6d0haf+fixkKdp5 ZoA1sQM+pn2AB3PKlGDFUvdkDWIlckCJDowjBCdpdiL4igdzPm5IHSJqlxgHPVk4gGFsR0D 845o89gnjkjzAHxE46NQw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:jyMWsFkZ/oE=:C9UoE2Mxc5HZeevxuVEa9L 4/w6hD/Sh92nPvooX9oR86zRCelhS5YV5iag+JR5nGbiQDMCMeaHv8Ik1tadGOqw9Kg+obVwD sT8QpywpTZL85j9/b2bIMyaBFVeEe5TBA8ox74QbdFXzyAa91GfD7n6QbAk6nBOJJlN0c4CN5 67ZRspXxWXH4LGeAfOh1qa7iqkO7DaRtx5wEpWYkiS1xN/fVnHf7RbVEfCUO2a1asF6cREuHI /edbn+guFmJDuKubqKltL/ocNstyzORSOYd0UGPUoOZvbDOTZ/9+cvNBvUQEuQfxf4PGTMg9I rmJ1TBpe0/rRJiRz+fRGmKqz/Nl5p61RzMP3Byt95lwyV5EvCndgyZmOEXV8RxWerRe6mCyW9 c15/FVKv+WyiRWqUkfAGo1E6FnQ0KK4D4pjFNdRkLbvHWofnWwRiGeht8FEPYEhIFaOsj9gAd zNAk1ztzbw==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/o1tLFP9mDF3mOARgX3pYtTuulBo>
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:59:32 -0000

Text version:
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 02/27/2020 12:09 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> wrote:


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


 

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email