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

Re: Decision about Host?

From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:57:40 +0100 (MET)
To: Beth Frank <efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <162.bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Beth Frank writes: 
> I need to give an answer to our browser implementors.
> My understanding of the situation is:
> 1) In HTTP/1.1  HOST will be a required header field for
> 	http: URI's.
as I understood, for HTTP URLs.
> 2) There is not portable way to easily guarantee that a
> 	client (on all platforms) can get a fully qualified
> 	domain name (fqdn) to place in HOST.
> So, is it acceptable for the client to place whatever it
> 	finds between the // and the first / in the HOST
> 	field, with the understanding it may not be a
acceptable, but not bad to have an option to ask the user for the fqdn 
when the client is unsure, that the given hostname is a fqdn.
Not fully qualified host names come normally from user input, not from
html links.
The worst what can happen, that the host name will be resolved using a
different resolver configuration. The user will be able to detect when the
resolved host name isn't the same what he/she wanted. (With very high
probability will result in a 404 error code.)
A good server implementation can find, in which identity has any meaning
the request-url, and can respond appropriately.
> 	fqdn?  If we can get a resolution on this soon,
> 	the addition of the HOST header will make the next
> 	Mosaic release.

Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Thursday, 5 October 1995 10:09:27 UTC

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