Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

Paul Hoffman (
Sun, 19 Feb 1995 17:19:42 -0700

Message-Id: <v02110105ab6d8b4db67d@[]>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 17:19:42 -0700
To: Reed Wade <>,
From: (Paul Hoffman)
Subject: Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

>At minimum, tho, you _must_ unambiguously indicate what part
>is data and what part is connection info. That's what the
>//host:port/ muck in 1738 is for. If that type of host info
>is not used in the url (as we're suggesting) then there needs
>to be some other way of indicating what's what.

I see the problem here. In fact, I misunderstood what RFC 1288 wanted to
send out until I tried it on a couple of hosts. I'll change the relevant
part of the I-D in the next round to the following (unless someone here has
better wording):

The "finger" URL has the form:


where <request> is any request that conforms to the query specification
given in RFC 1288.

All requests must be sent to the standard TCP finger port, 79 (decimal).
The client software should look for requests that do not conform to RFC
1288 and reject them. In addition, a finger URL that does not include a
host name, such as:


should be rejected by the client software.

The request send by a finger client should follow the rules in RFC 1288
for stripping host names. For example, the URL:


would cause a finger client to send the request "someuser<CRLF>" to
port 79 at

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing