W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

RE: ISSUE: Protection space

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:05:32 -0700
Message-Id: <CB6657D3A5E0D111A97700805FFE65875D7430@red-msg-51.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Dave Kristol' <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Kristol [mailto:dmk@bell-labs.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 7:05 AM
> To: Paul Leach
> Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: ISSUE: Protection space
> 
>
> > RATIONALE:
> > The terminology of "protection space" was not used for 
> Digest. The means for
> > determining when Digest clients could use the same credentials was
> > under-specified.
> 
> I agree the "protection space" for Digest needed to be specified.  I
> have a problem with the proposed words above:
> 
> I assume "5.1.2 of [2]" refers to the HTTP/1.1 spec.  The words
> "canonical root URL" do not appear there, and I am therefore 
> unsure what was meant. 

Mumph. I just copied that text from section 1 of the spec. I think it means
that if the server is "www.foo.com" then the cononincal root URL is
"http://www.foo.com/"

> Since all URLs on a server are implicitly 
> descended from "/"
> (no?), wouldn't it be easier just to say that relative URLs 
> are taken to
> be relative to "/"?

The list allows absolute URIs with host names other than that of the server
sending the "domain" directive.

Paul
Received on Friday, 7 August 1998 10:07:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:20 EDT