- From: Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 20:02:28 -0700
- To: uri@bunyip.com
- Cc: peter@mail.peter.com.au
I propose the following:
====================
The "finger" URL has the form:
finger://host[:port][/<request>]
The <request> must conform with the RFC 1288 request format.
A finger client could simply send the <request> to the host designated
in the first part of the URL at the specified port after decoding any
escaped characters.
====================
I believe that the "host" is the host to which the request is *first* sent.
Otherwise, we are getting into routing issues, which I think are
inappropriate for URL schemes. Also, it is likely that >99% of the finger
URLs we see will be simply "finger://host/user" or "finger://host". Let's
not burden the spec with how to do the oddball @host1@host2 stuff.
Examples
finger://space.mit.edu/nasanews
finger://host2.bigstate.edu/someuser@host1.bigstate.edu
finger://host1.bigstate.edu/%2FW%20someuser
For the security part, I would add:
As explained in RFC 1738, URLs that use non-standard port numbers pose a
potential security risk for users of those URLs. If a port other than 79 is
specified in a finger URL, the finger client might warn the user or reject
the URL altogether.
How does this sound to everyone?
Received on Sunday, 5 March 1995 23:01:28 UTC