- From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 08:42:38 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy says:
>
> Because it doesn't gain us anything more than just sending Host on
> all HTTP/1.x requests. If there was something wrong with the Host
> solution, then I could understand the desire to do that. However,
> given that there is nothing wrong with the Host solution, and Host
> has already been deployed, this all seems like a waste of time.
The things that are wrong with the Host: solution, to my mind, are:
- It STILL leaves us with a protocol where URLs are things that protocol
entities have to break into little pieces and chew upon.
- It STILL leaves us with an UA-to-cache protocol that is incompatible with
the UA-to-server and cache-to-server protocol.
- It STILL loses the method information.
- It STILL gives us no path to where it seems everyone wants to be, namely
with full URLs, until we throw out HTTP/1.x altogether
These aren't "nothing". The question is which pain is lesser.
Harald A
Received on Sunday, 24 March 1996 23:45:36 UTC