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

Re: domain-name?

From: Albert Lunde <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:14:58 -0600
Message-Id: <v01510100ac87ad856ba7@[129.105.110.129]>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 5:19 PM 9/21/95, Roy Fielding wrote:
>I'm not into compromises today.  Either we go with the Orig-URI header
>as specified in draft 01, or we go with
>
>  Host: fully.qualified.domain.name

>I am calling for WG consensus on this issue RIGHT NOW.  If you have
>a preference either way, send your comment in RIGHT NOW.  If some
>degree of rough consensus can be obtained within the next 5 days,
>then I will include the decision in HTTP/1.1 draft 00.

I looked back at my old mail (couldn't reach the wg archive) to see what
reasons were suggested for the use of Orig-URI.

If the sole use was to disambiguate vanity home page addresses, "Host:"
might be sufficent, but it seems that the other factors get in the picture.

Most importantly, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker mentioned needing the URI for the
keyed digest authentication scheme... I'm not sure if this is still an
issue... perhaps he could comment.

A couple of people mentioned interaction with proxies, either that Orig-URI
could be used by proxies or that it was useful to have the URI unmodified
by proxies (I guess URN resolution would be a related case to this.)

Someone suggested that it would be useful for more general "smart
redirects" and that having the fragment identifier might be useful.

Of these, I think the question of the effect on digest authentication is
most important. It's not a current-practice thing so much as it's a
up-and-coming thing I don't want us to break.

(And I'm not sure I've clearly stated the rest, from skimming my mail.)


---
    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
Received on Thursday, 21 September 1995 16:20:17 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:32 EDT