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

Re: NUDGE: Our piece on Host: and URLs (Fwd)

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970510095045.5732D-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3239

On Sat, 10 May 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> >>	Ok I've reviewed the 1.1 draft, If I remember correctly,
> >>we agreed to make host be FQDN.
> > 
> >Yup.
> > 
> >>Did we agree on any special cases which need to be included in the
> >>draft?
> > 
> >No, we agreed that there were no special cases.
> Why?  There is currently no need for host to be an FQDN, for either
> the Host field-value or a full-URL.  Please explain.

I agree with Roy ... we recently had a new rehash of the question and
it was/is quite clear that is is unreasonable to expect a client to
fabricate a FQDN for the host field if it wasn't in the URL.  The whole
purpose of the Host: field is satisified if the field is simply filled in
with the host:port portion of the URL.  

There are many (orders of magnitude)  more cases where a client would find
it impossible to create a FQDN than the obscure configuration where a
client can use a partial name to locate the server BUT the server can't
use that partial name to properly identify a virtual document root.

Dave Morris 
Received on Saturday, 10 May 1997 09:57:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC