- From: Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 08:49:58 -0700
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>> Not, because the port number is the port number on which the server is >> listening. > >False. The server may be behind a firewall, proxy or accelerator; the >port on which it is listening may not be the port the client used. > >I suggest that HOST include the port number. It does no harm, and there >can be (useful) cases where the port number is not available to the >server. I agree here. We got into the state of needing "HOST" because early HTTP assumed one one host per machine, which turned out not to be the case. I think it is short-sighted to not include (or at least allow and encourage) HOST to include all the know information about the target connection, namely the host name and the intended port. Of course, any HOST without a port number should be assumed to default to 80. --Paul Hoffman --Proper Publishing
Received on Friday, 6 October 1995 08:51:12 UTC