Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

Reed Wade (wade@cs.utk.edu)
Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:57:46 -0500


Message-Id: <9502200257.AA01899@honk.cs.utk.edu>
To: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)
Cc: Reed Wade <wade@cs.utk.edu>, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Feb 1995 17:19:42 MST."
             <v02110105ab6d8b4db67d@[165.227.40.29]> 
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:57:46 -0500
From: Reed Wade <wade@cs.utk.edu>



><finger:someuser@host1.bigstate.edu>
>
>would cause a finger client to send the request "someuser<CRLF>" to
>port 79 at host1.bigstate.edu.
>
>--Paul Hoffman

ok, I feel better now, thanks.

><finger:someuser>
>
>should be rejected by the client software.

how about interpreting "someuser" as "@someuser"?




However, I wouldn't mind seeing some discussion (even from people 
who haven't said anything yet) on 2 points that apply to but also 
transcend the finger url discussion--

1. ability to specify alternate port, how important is this?
   I know I've indicated this isn't too important in real life
   use of finger but I was able to come up with an instance where 
   this would be useful (imagine using the ":" as port separator)--

   finger:therm.netlib.org:451

   If you want to know the temp outside my office.


2. adherence to the scheme://host/ method of indicating the host
   name. I can't think of a better exception to this rule than
   finger--but are there any hidden costs?



-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>