Subject: Re: CNRP URI ABNF

From: Nicolas Popp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:58:35 -0700

Michael.

Is not the path a desirable convenience for CNRP service operators since for
the HTTP transport that the protocol requires, it would translate directly
into the Web server path (e.g. cgi-bin/CNRPResolver )?

-Nico

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mealling [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 10:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: CNRP URI ABNF

Here's the ABNF for the CNRP URI. Can someone please check my grammar
for correctness? Thanks!

cnrp-uri = "cnrp:" (form1 / form2)
form1    = "//" [server] "/" [path] "?" [ common-name ] [ id-req ] *avpair
form2         = common-name *avpair
id-req        = ";id=" value
avpair        = ";" attribute "=" value
server        = // as specified in RFC2396
path          = path_segments
path_segments = // as specified in RFC2396
common-name   = *uric
attribute     = *pchar
value         = *pchar
uric          = // as specified in RFC2396
pchar         = // as specified in RFC2396

Open questions:

1) If 'server' is absent then is that equivalent to server being equal to
the string "localhost"?

2) I'm defining 'path' as a value used to differentiate two data sets
running on the same host. Example: lets say there are two sets of data on
your local machine. One is for your address book and the other is
for your bookmarks. In those cases the path would be used to differentiate
between those two servers. Especially when the values in those two servers
are unrelated. The counter argument is that this is just an additional
parameter and since it doesn't exist anywhere in the protocol it shouldn't
exist here. Comments?

-MM

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Michael Mealling        |      Vote Libertarian!       |
www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:
14198821
Network Solutions       |          www.lp.org          |
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:33:46 -0400

> into the Web server path (e.g. cgi-bin/CNRPResolver )?

While it might be needed by the transport I don't think its required by CNRP.
I also might expect that CNRP would be on a seperate port number making it
a seperate HTTP server for many operators. I.e. it may be necessary for
the HTTP transport but is it a necessary part of the CNRP URI?

-MM

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling        |      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions       |          www.lp.org          |  [email-masked]