W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: domain-name?

From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199509211933.MAA28623@neon.netscape.com>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Cc: montulli@mozilla.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

> >Let's forget about Orig-URI and concentrate on fixing this
> >problem.  Sending Orig-Host solves the problem, and in my
> >opinion is the best solution.
> That is your opinion.  It was my opinion six months ago when
> I originally proposed *just* Host.  I was overruled, and you must
> come up with a better argument than that if you want the WG to change
> it again.

So we're going to waste terabytes of bandwidth over the coming months
(and years) before we even have URNs that would need the Orig-URI
header instead.  Just the Netscape home server alone would receive 10
GB of useless data that it doesn't need nor want in one year.

It's silly to waste bandwidth for alleged future compatibility in
HTTP/1.0, when there is most likely going to be a new protocol
(HTTP-NG) by the time that URNs get in wide enough use.

Besides, and most importantly, aren't we going to be smarter and pass
the entire URN to the server, so we won't even *need* the Orig-URI for
URNs??  So all we need is Orig-Host to solve the mess we have now in
our hands because only the path info of the URL is passed.  For URNs
we have the luxury of being wiser now, and not going mess around with

Ari Luotonen				ari@netscape.com
Netscape Communications Corp.		http://home.netscape.com/people/ari/
501 East Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043, USA		Netscape Server Development Team
Received on Thursday, 21 September 1995 12:37:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC