Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

Reed Wade (wade@cs.utk.edu)
Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:28:32 -0500


Message-Id: <9502150228.AA11319@honk.cs.utk.edu>
To: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)
Cc: miked@ncd.com (Michael A. Dolan), uri@bunyip.com, wade@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:52:06 MST."
             <v02110107ab66fd39fecf@[165.227.40.19]> 
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:28:32 -0500
From: Reed Wade <wade@cs.utk.edu>


Of the 2 schemes I don't see any functional difference.

finger:<blah> is certainly more intuitive for most people.

finger://<blah>/<blah> is more descriptive from an engineering 
point of view. It's more intuitive for me.

Anyway, I'm liking finger:<blah> best of all now.

I assume the request is required to contain at least one
@hostname. (Unlike rfc1288.)

There's one thing I'd like clarified--will the final @hostname
part (from which the connect-to host is derived) be stripped 
before <blah> is sent to the remote host?

-reed

-----
University of Tennessee, Knoxville            Dept of Computer Science
Netlib Development Group            'I was kidding,' says bomb suspect
wade@cs.utk.edu -- <URL:http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/ReedWade.html>