- From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
- Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 02:55:12 +0100 (MET)
- To: "M. Hedlund" <hedlund@best.com>
- Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
M. Hedlund writes: > At 4:52 PM 10/5/95, Balint Nagy Endre wrote: > >>Jeffrey Mogul writes: [...] > >> 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? [...] > > > >300 Multipe choices would be fine. > > Not if the provider wished to make one or more of the choices semi-private > (i.e., only available by explicit request). Also, in the case Andrew > mentioned -- where an ISP wishes to give each of many customers an unique > domain name -- there could be many, many choices available. (See > <URL:ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/>, if you can get to it.) As I can recall, ftp.netcom.com has a really long pub dir. I hope no one ISP is willing to open www.user.isp.net for all of its individual users. You can expect too many choices only if you want to get http://www/. If you want to get something different, the there will be significantly less candidates. Most often only one of them will have ~user for any user name. But your semi-privacy requirement suggests that in case of ambiguity 300 response SHOULD be returned. (Instead of the proposed MUST.) Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Thursday, 5 October 1995 19:53:51 UTC