Re: domain-name?

At 5:19 PM 9/21/95, Roy Fielding wrote:
>I'm not into compromises today.  Either we go with the Orig-URI header
>as specified in draft 01, or we go with
>
>  Host: fully.qualified.domain.name
>
>as I originally suggested in
>
>  <http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1995q1/0088.html>

The ONLY piece of information that a host cannot deduce from an current
HTTP request is the domain name that was used to access the host. While
future compatibility with URI/URN schemes is laudable, there is no reason
to duplicate all of the URL path information, port number, and protocol in
current implementations. I think Lou is being pragmatic when pointing out
that URN-related features are so far out right now, that there isn't a lot
to be gained by providing a field to support them.

So, to answer with portions of your original message:

"So, which one should we include in the 1.1 specification:

   Host: foo.bar.com

-- YES.

or

   Orig-URI: http//foo.bar.com:8001/home/is/where/the/wallet/is.html

-- NO. Can always be added later, when/if URNs make it necessary.

Also, should it be:

   a) recommended for all requests

-- ALL HTTP REQUESTS SHOULD SEND THIS INFORMATION.

   b) recommended only for requests to standard URLs like / and /site.idx

-- DO IT FOR EVERYTHING.

I am assuming that it will not be recommended for requests that already
use the full URI, and that will remain the goal for 2.0.  One of the things
that we intend to require for 1.1 is that servers know their own set
of hostnames and do the right thing if they receive a full-URI using one
of those hostnames. "

-- EXACTLY!!!

--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Chuck Shotton                               StarNine Technologies, Inc.
chuck@starnine.com                             http://www.starnine.com/
cshotton@biap.com                                  http://www.biap.com/
                 "Shut up and eat your vegetables!"

Received on Thursday, 21 September 1995 16:14:23 UTC