- From: Ross Patterson <Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 13:53:15 EST
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
touch@ISI.EDU writes: >http:// is clearly well-defined, and should not be overloaded. >If HTTP over other protocols is desired, the URL should be >extended to allow the specification, or the protocol name changed >(http: to something else). The Secure Sockets Layer folks seem to agree, as they specify that HTTP over SSL should be referred to by "https://...". >However, note that such changes require other possible extensions >to the URL, to allow arbirary names (with ":"'s inside the host >field), etc.). Yes, but so will IPv6. Despite some assertions to the contrary, it is still possible that IPv6 domain literals will need to be supported in URLs. The jury won't be in until we see a lot of serious IPv6 deployment. And generic parsers already have the colon problem with "ftp://user:password@host:port/..." URLs. Not that all of them succeed, though. Ross Patterson Sterling Software, Inc. VM Software Division
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 1997 14:08:59 UTC