- From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
- Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 00:52:25 +0100 (MET)
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Jeffrey Mogul writes: > Balint Nagy Endre writes: > Jeffrey Mogul writes: > > How about > > (1) clients SHOULD transmit the FQDN > > (2) the HTTP 1.x protocol DOES NOT SUPPORT server hosts with > > semantically different bindings to multiple FQDNs > > if any pair of those FQDNs share a common prefix. > > Oops. Most ISPs want to have > www.isp.net > www.customer1.com > www.customer2.com > .... > www.customerN.com > on a single host, because their customers want the illusion of their > own web server. > > I'm against this idea categorically. > > Good point about the current naming schemes. But then what does it > mean if a client sends: > > Host: www > > To me, this is an error, and the server can report it as such. > What else could it possibly do? > > So perhaps I would modify > > (3) server administrators SHOULD NOT configure servers > > in violation of rule (2). > to be > (3) servers MUST return an error [to be specified] if > a client sends a semantically ambiguous prefix in a > Host: header. 300 Multipe choices would be fine. Andrew. >
Received on Thursday, 5 October 1995 17:02:44 UTC