W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Nit in section 2.1.1 of httpbis-p1

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904072316460.10013@egate.xpasc.com>


On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Now #157 (editorial);
>  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/157
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On 27/03/2009, at 3:48 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>> As I said on the mic in SF:
>> Section 2.1.1 of part 1 is a bit too waffly about IP addresses, and
>> what it wants to say is already covered in the meaning of SHOULD
>> anyway.  So:
>> 
>> OLD
>> The use of IP addresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible
>> (see [RFC1900]).
>> 
>> NEW
>> IP addresses SHOULD NOT be used in URLs (see [RFC1900]).
>> 
>> Technically, these say the same thing, so it's not a substantive
>> change.  But the second is in the active voice, and doesn't use the
>> waffly "whenever possible" phrase.

Considering the use of IP addresses by legitimate web sites I observe on a 
daily basis, the OLD wording really is more relaxed and consistent with 
real world practice than the proposed replacement. I suspect that it is
related to some form of load balancing and sticking to the assigned 
server. Or it might have to do with use of a facility such as Amazon Web 
Services where making IPs persist across restarts costs money and is more 
difficult than simply using the known current assigned public IP in the 
redirect or base tag for subsequent pages. I prefer the OLD form.

David Morris
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 06:25:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT