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

RE: Decision about Host?

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 11:58:34 PDT
Message-Id: <9510052035.AA10468@netmail2.microsoft.com>
To: efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
It occurs to me, that if the client and server have exactly the same 
domain search list, then there shouldn't be any problem using the 
relative domain names, and that this may often be true in the case that 
is most important -- within a corporate environment.

This would mean that a server has to know all the fully and partially 
qualified names that it is trying to serve -- not a big deal if it 
could be configured to know more than one FQDN.

Hence, I would support either:
a) require FQDN
or
b) require FQDN or PQDN when PQDN is administratively known to be 
unambiguous for all servers reachable by PQDN.
----------
] From: Beth Frank  <efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
] To: http WG  <netmail!http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
] Subject: Decision about Host?
] Date: Thursday, October 05, 1995 11:21AM
]
] 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.
]
] 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
] 	fqdn?  If we can get a resolution on this soon,
] 	the addition of the HOST header will make the next
] 	Mosaic release.
] --
] 		Elizabeth(Beth) Frank
] 		NCSA Server Development Team
] 		efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu
] 
Received on Thursday, 5 October 1995 12:34:02 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:33 EDT