- From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 08:05:09 -0400
- To: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@exchange.microsoft.com>
- CC: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
"Josh Cohen (Exchange)" wrote: > I would like to propose: > > 1) If a client is issuing a 1.1 request and the client has obtained > positive knowledge, possibly through an out of band mechanism, that all > proxies and the origin server in the request path are 1.1 compliant or > better, that it may omit the host header when absolute URIs are used. > > 2) Clients are permitted to use absoluteURIs when talking to 1.1 servers. > > Does this seem reasonable ? The problem is that, even if you find out that foo.example.com is a 1.1 server, you can't be certain that that will remain true. There's the usual problem of people upgrading their software, of course, but there's also the issue of load balancing. If not all the machines that handle requests to foo.example.com are running 1.1 servers, then any assumption about whether the one you're talking to is 1.1 or not will break eventually. Similarly, there might be a heterogeneous proxy farm somewhere along the path. -- /==============================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=============================================| |eCal Corp. |This sentance has threee errors. | |francis@ecal.com| | \==============================================================/
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 05:08:14 UTC