Questions regarding XRI Resoution as client of 2.1 abstract syntax

["Steven Churchill" <steven.churchill@xdi.org>]

Drummond,

I have some questions regarding the proposed 2.1 abstract syntax and XRI
Resolution as client.

For the benefit of those on the list who haven't been steeped in XRI
Resolution, let me give some context. [Drummond, my questions are below.]
The resolver invokes the XRI parser which returns a syntax tree conforming
to the abstract syntax. During the "authority resolution" phase, the
resolver walks through the top-level subsegments of this tree passing the
name of the "next" subsegment to the authority resolution service of the
"previous" subsegment, until it gets to then end.

In the 2.0 abstract syntax, the subsegments had two types--persistent and
reassignable. The notion of persistence is simply a convention for authority
resolution services (their registries) as follows: If I pay my registry for
a "bang" (persistent) identifier, then my registry should not reassign that
identifier to someone else, even if I stop paying my bill.

In the proposed 2.1 abstract syntax, the subsegments have seven types. Here
are my questions for Drummond:

1. 	Does the resolver still walk through the top-level subsegments (that
is, passing the name of the "next" subsegment to the authority resolution
service of the "previous" subsegment) as described above? [I would assume
the answer is yes.]

2.	Can authority resolution services now accept 7 types of query? [I
would assume the answer is yes.]

3.	Does the resolver algorithm distinguish between "global" and "local"
subsegments. [I would assume the answer is no. The resolver simply walks
down the list of top-level subsegment invoking the authority resolution
services.]

4.	Are six of the subsegment types reassignable and only one (bang)
persistent (as per the definition above)?

5. 	If the answer to 3 above is "no", then why does the parser care
about sticky stars?

Thanks,

~ Steve