W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2006

3405 URI NAPTR (BCP 65)

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:42:26 +0200
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <45426122.398F@xyzzy.claranet.de>

Next question, RFC 3405 introduced uri.arpa domains with NAPTRs for various
schemes.  My nslookup is too old for such tricks, but with an online "dig"
I found:

http://vweb.nass.com.au/cgi-bin/dnslookup?data=urn.uri.arpa
http://vweb.nass.com.au/cgi-bin/dnslookup?data=ftp.uri.arpa
http://vweb.nass.com.au/cgi-bin/dnslookup?data=http.uri.arpa
http://vweb.nass.com.au/cgi-bin/dnslookup?data=mailto.uri.arpa

My regexp knowledge is somewhat limited, is the pattern for ftp and http
really correct ?  A colon in <userinfo> doesn't terminate an <authority>,
the wanted part is the <host> without optional <port> behind an optional
<userinfo>.

The pattern for mailto: is a very simple variant of 2368(bis), it allows
exactly one mailbox without header, or in other words, where are the "?"
and the "," terminating an optional first mailbox ?  Let alone stuff
like a <route-addr> in RFC 822, but Paul already said here that this was
probably an error, and 2368bis reduced it to an <addr-spec> list.

2368bis -03 uses %2C as separator, what's wrong with a comma ?  Anyway,
what I really wanted to ask:  Should nntp get a new nntp.uri.arpa NAPTR
as proposed in BCP 65 ?

Frank
Received on Friday, 27 October 2006 19:56:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC