- From: Ross Patterson <Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 09:45:23 EDT
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com
Given that RFC 2169 "A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN Resolution" and some caching recommendations from this working group have both cited specific path patterns, is it time to discuss something like "assigned paths", similar to assigned numbers? RFC 2169 specifies a technique for resolving Uniform Resource Names by sending an HTTP GET request for "/uri-res/<service>?<urn>". The caching recommendations (sorry, I can't recall who or what to cite) suggest not caching any response for "/cgi-bin/..." unless the cache has some reason to believe it is cachable. While the latter is a common path form, at least on Unix-based HTTP servers, there's nothing historically special about the former. If we're going to see a growth in "special" path patterns, I think we need to quarantine them into a subtree so as not to collide with pre-existing "normal" paths. The alternative is to accept that existing URLs will collide from time to time with newly-published special paths, and that some breakage will occur. I'm not too thrilled with that choice myself. Ross Patterson Sterling Software, Inc. VM Software Division
Received on Thursday, 26 June 1997 07:02:09 UTC