W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Claification requested in Host:

From: <jg@zorch.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 10:28:26 -0500
Message-Id: <9702141528.AA08547@zorch.w3.org>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I'm working on getting together an issues list on the HTTP/1.1
spec, as we need to get the work done to get the document to
draft standard.  I found this in my mail and believe resolving it
is editorial in nature, but want the working group to see it in
any case (in case there is something lurking below the surface.
				- Jim



----------
From: 	Dah Ming Chiu[SMTP:dahming.chiu@Eng.Sun.COM]
Sent: 	Friday, November 15, 1996 12:44 PM
To: 	Jim Gettys; jg@w3.org
Cc: 	sfergus@seacat-71.Eng.Sun.COM
Subject: 	RE: http 1.1

Jim,

Here is a HTTP 1.1 question for you.  According to the spec 14.23, the
Host field is defined as
	"Host" ":" host [ ":" port ]
where (in 3.2.2), host is defined as
	<a legal Internet host domain name or IP address...>

The question is whether a single component name consititute a "legal"
Internet host domain name?  For example, a user types in "foo" at his
browser, which runs in domain "xyz.com".  The browser is smart enough
to assume the use wants to talk to "foo.xyz.com", and hence gets the
correct IP address.  But in the HTTP request, the browser sends
	Host : foo
Does this browser conform to HTTP 1.1?

If the answer is yes, there may be a problem with HTTP 1.1, since the
ambiguous host name is not sufficient for virtual host implementation.

I suspect the answer is no, in which case that browser is not conformant.
Could make this point clear in your spec?

	Regards
	Dah Ming





------- End of Forwarded Message
Received on Friday, 14 February 1997 10:33:09 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:26 EDT