- From: Anselm Baird-Smith <abaird@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:14:17 +0500
- To: Patrick Montelo <pmontelo@spyglass.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I will probably do the following: when you configure the server, you can map any host names to given roots. In addition I will have a (mandatory) default host (eg *default-root*) to handle ambiguous requests, or IP based requests. More pragmatically, I will do a string based comparison on the registered host names, against the given Host header, if none of them match, then I will fallback to the default root. As Jigsaw is so flexible ;-) this default root can be anything, including a redirection to some more specific resource, emitting an error message, etc. Anselm. Patrick Montelo writes: > Implementation Question: Handling ambiguous requests > > For a HTTP/1.1 origin server that does differentiate resources based on the > host requested, certain requests can be ambiguous. Consider the following: > > Example 1: > > A single server, IP address 204.4.214.77, has been configured to serve for > two different host names on the same port: > > pmontelo.spyglass.com:80 > pmontelo.foobar.com:80 > > The following requests are ambiguous: > > GET http://204.4.214.77/ HTTP/1.1 <<< IP maps to more than one domain > name/alias > GET http://pmontelo/ HTTP/1.1 <<< Request from inside the > spyglass.com domain > > > Example 2: > > A single server, IP address 204.4.214.77, has been configured to serve for > two different host names on the same port: > > pmontelo.spyglass.com:80 > foobar.spyglass.com:80 > > Consider these request: > > GET http://204.4.214.77/ HTTP/1.1 <<< IP maps to more than one domain > name/alias, ambiguous > GET http://pmontelo/ HTTP/1.1 <<< Request from inside the > spyglass.com domain, OK? > > My initial reaction is to respond with a 400 for all of these requests > except the last example, which would map to pmontelo.spyglass.com:80. > > This forces the webmaster to explicitly solve any ambiguity in the server > configuration. > > Anyone have any better ideas or see any problems with this approach? > >
Received on Friday, 6 September 1996 06:23:58 UTC