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

Re: domain-name?

From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 14:40:04 -0700
Message-Id: <3061DBB4.41C6@mozilla.com>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Cc: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy Fielding wrote:
> >I understand that Orig-URI is optional, and it doesn't suitably solve
> >the very important problem of serving different content based
> >on different domain names pointing at the same IP address.
> Yes it does.  Prove to me that it doesn't, and I'll remove it from
> the specification.

Here is a round about proof.  :)

If you had the choice of buying the same car for
either 10000 or 5000 what would you pay?

I would only pay 5000.

Orig-URI and Orig-Host fall well under the same analogy.

The path requested plus the info in Orig-Host give the
same amount of information as the Orig-URI with half
the data.

I'm not going to add something as wasteful as Orig-URI
when there are better alternatives.

> >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.

Well you seem to be the only person objecting to it now.  If
you would simply agree with your previous position we could
be done with this.

Lou Montulli                 http://www.mcom.com/people/montulli/
       Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Thursday, 21 September 1995 14:43:38 UTC

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