Re: [WARP] comment on subdomains

On Mar 4, 2010, at 16:07 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le jeudi 04 mars 2010 à 15:51 +0100, Robin Berjon a écrit :
>> On Dec 10, 2009, at 16:51 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>>> A quick comment after re-reading WARP at the invitation of Robin to DAP
>>> [1]: I don’t think the notion of subdomain is well-defined; is a
>>> subdomain of .org? is co a subdomain of I assume they are in the
>>> sense of the spec, but if that’s so, it doesn’t match the “street”
>>> meaning of the word “subdomain”; this matters in particular in section 7
>>> (rules for granting access), since this has an impact on how a user
>>> agent decides to grant access to a network resource. Given that IP
>>> addresses are allowed, the algorithm to determine if something is a
>>> subdomain of another domain is as simple as looking to the last dot in
>>> the authority component.
>> That's a fair point. Would referencing RFC 1034 in that section
>> address your concern? I would rather not have to define subdomain
>> ourselves but rather reuse what already exists!
> Sounds good to me, although I think I would also rephrase somewhat the
> algorithm, à la:
> * the URI's scheme component is the same as scheme; and
> * if subdomains is false or if the URI's host component is not a domain
> name (as defined in RFC1034), the URI's host component is the same as
> host; or
> * if subdomains is true, the URI's host component is either the same as
> host, or is a subdomain of host (as defined in RFC1034); and

Good suggestion, the latest ED reflects the above change plus another reference where subdomains are defined.

Please let us know if that works for you!

Robin Berjon -

Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 16:04:06 UTC