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

Assigned paths

From: Ross Patterson <Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 09:45:23 EDT
Message-Id: <199706261402.AA29095@reston.vmd.sterling.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3569
Given that RFC 2169 "A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN
Resolution" and some caching recommendations from this working group
have both cited specific path patterns, is it time to discuss something
like "assigned paths", similar to assigned numbers?

RFC 2169 specifies a technique for resolving Uniform Resource Names by
sending an HTTP GET request for "/uri-res/<service>?<urn>".  The caching
recommendations (sorry, I can't recall who or what to cite) suggest not
caching any response for "/cgi-bin/..." unless the cache has some reason
to believe it is cachable.  While the latter is a common path form, at
least on Unix-based HTTP servers, there's nothing historically special
about the former.

If we're going to see a growth in "special" path patterns, I think we
need to quarantine them into a subtree so as not to collide with
pre-existing "normal" paths.  The alternative is to accept that existing
URLs will collide from time to time with newly-published special paths,
and that some breakage will occur.  I'm not too thrilled with that
choice myself.

Ross Patterson
Sterling Software, Inc.
VM Software Division
Received on Thursday, 26 June 1997 07:02:09 UTC

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