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

Re: Host: vs. Orig-URI: w/ %%

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 13:42:44 -0400
Message-Id: <9509221742.AA21770@www20>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> I was going to say that I found the Orig-URI-with-%% mechanism a
> little more compelling this morning, and retract my support of Host:,
> but I realized that I didn't know what a client would send to a proxy
> under the Orig-URI proposal. Would they send:
> 
>    GET http://host.dom/path.stuff HTTP/1.1
>    Orig-URI: %%
> 
> or 
> 
>    GET http://host.dom/path.stuff HTTP/1.1
>    Orig-URI: http://host.dom/%%
> 
> or would they leave it out completely and let the proxy handle it?
> 
> In fact, even for the 'Host:' proposal, shouldn't clients just not
> bother supplying Host to the proxy, and shouldn't the proxy generate
> it?

The value should be the original value in the URL before any translation 
whether it is the Orig-URI or the Host approach. Sending the URL through a 
proxy is a translation which should not reflect the value. That is:

>    GET http://host.dom/path.stuff HTTP/1.1
>    Orig-URI: http://host.dom/%%

will do just fine. However I would prefer the following syntax of the Orig-URI:

	GET http://host.dom/path.stuff HTTP/1.1
	Orig-URI: <host>%%;<params>#<fragment>

Orig-URI can then be passed through the proxy with no modifications.

-- 

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, <frystyk@w3.org>
World-Wide Web Consortium, MIT/LCS NE43-356
545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139, USA
Received on Friday, 22 September 1995 10:45:34 EDT

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