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

Re: How to add new "protocols" ?

From: Ross Patterson <Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 13:53:15 EST
Message-Id: <199702181903.AA27872@reston.vmd.sterling.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2425
touch@ISI.EDU writes:

>http:// is clearly well-defined, and should not be overloaded.
>If HTTP over other protocols is desired, the URL should be
>extended to allow the specification, or the protocol name changed
>(http: to something else).

The Secure Sockets Layer folks seem to agree, as they specify that
HTTP over SSL should be referred to by "https://...".

>However, note that such changes require other possible extensions
>to the URL, to allow arbirary names (with ":"'s inside the host
>field), etc.).

Yes, but so will IPv6.  Despite some assertions to the contrary, it is
still possible that IPv6 domain literals will need to be supported in
URLs.  The jury won't be in until we see a lot of serious IPv6
deployment.  And generic parsers already have the colon problem with
"ftp://user:password@host:port/..." URLs.  Not that all of them succeed,

Ross Patterson
Sterling Software, Inc.
VM Software Division
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 1997 14:08:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC