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

Re: domain-name?

From: Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin <syj@ecmwf.int>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:29:39 +0100
Message-Id: <9509221141.ZM23696@helena>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Sep 21, 17:19, 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
> as I originally suggested in
>   <http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1995q1/0088.html>
> 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 vote for this Host: solution, mandatory in HTTP/1.1. I don't think it
belongs in HTTP/1.0, as this header field isn't used in current practice.

I think Orig-Host: would have been ambiguous: "Orig" may be understood as
being the sender, rather than the origin server in the original URI. "Host"
doesn't hint if it's the client's or server's side, so if you don't know,
you've got to read the spec.

Based on RFC 1808, this header field could have been defined as:

    Network-Location: fully.qualified.domain.name

Based on the HTTP/1.0 spec, it could also have been defined as:

    Origin-Server-Fqdn: fully.qualified.domain.name

Endre proposed yet 2 others. But there's already a Host: proposal, so let's
stick to it.

Received on Friday, 22 September 1995 03:45:02 UTC

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