- From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
- cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Brian Smith wrote: > David Morris wrote: >>> On 27/03/2009, at 3:48 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> As I said on the mic in SF: >>>> Section 2.1.1 of part 1 is a bit too waffly about IP addresses, and >>>> what it wants to say is already covered in the meaning of SHOULD >>>> anyway. So: >>>> >>>> OLD >>>> The use of IP addresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible >>>> (see [RFC1900]). >>>> >>>> NEW >>>> IP addresses SHOULD NOT be used in URLs (see [RFC1900]). > >> Considering the use of IP addresses by legitimate web sites I observe >> on a daily basis, the OLD wording really is more relaxed and >> consistent with real world practice than the proposed replacement. >> I suspect that it is related to some form of load balancing and >> sticking to the assigned server. Or it might have to do with use >> of a facility such as Amazon Web Services where making IPs persist >> across restarts costs money and is more difficult than simply >> using the known current assigned public IP in the redirect or base >> tag for subsequent pages. I prefer the OLD form. > > Let's just remove the advice completely. It doesn't add any value and if it > did it would belong in (an update of) RFC 3986, not in HTTP. There is > nothing HTTP-specific about the badness of IP addresses in URIs. That alternative is fine with me.
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 20:58:53 UTC