- From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Oct 95 13:17:59 MDT
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I've skipped a few of the messages in this thread, so perhaps this is repetitive. Paul writes: It occurs to me, that if the client and server have exactly the same domain search list, then there shouldn't be any problem using the relative domain names, and that this may often be true in the case that is most important -- within a corporate environment. This would mean that a server has to know all the fully and partially qualified names that it is trying to serve -- not a big deal if it could be configured to know more than one FQDN. In other words: even if the client does not know the FQDN, presumably the fact that it has opened a TCP connection with a given server means that the PQDN provided is a prefix of one of the server's FQDNs, or that the connection was made in error. However, this kind of error (connecting to the wrong host) seems rather unlikely, doesn't it? Hence, I would support either: a) require FQDN or b) require FQDN or PQDN when PQDN is administratively known to be unambiguous for all servers reachable by PQDN. 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. (3) server administrators SHOULD NOT configure servers in violation of rule (2). Rule (2), in effect, says that you can have a single host serve "a.dec.com" and "b.dec.com" as completely different servers. It also implies that you can have "a.dec.com" and "a.pa.dec.com" and "a.digital.com" as long as they all are intended to mean the same thing. It says that you cannot serve "c.pa.dec.com" and "c.digital.com" from the same host if these are are meant to be semantically different (that is, if "http://c.pa.dec.com" is supposed to return different data than "http://c.digital.com"). I suppose if a client managed to connect to "a.sgi.com" when it was trying to retrieve "http://a.digital.com" (but using the PQDN URL "http://a/"), then this mistake could result in an undetected error. But it already would in HTTP 1.0, so this shouldn't be a big deal. -Jeff
Received on Thursday, 5 October 1995 13:42:12 UTC