Re: Claification requested in Host:
touch@isi.edu
Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:44:01 -0800
> Yep, which is why I said we don't need to specify it in HTTP. All of
> the above is referenced as the definition of a legal Internet host,
> and therefore all of the concerns you expressed are already covered
> by RFC 2068 via these references. I don't see why the HTTP spec should
> create additional requirements to address those concerns.
>
> .....Roy
OK, but then the 1.1 spec should require an error when
an incomplete name is received, because it violates the spec.:
> From fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU Wed Feb 19 12:25:49 1997
>
> >How does a proxy handle this?
> >This seems like something that should be nailed down in the 1.1 spec.
> >
> >Consider:
> >
> > client xxx.foo.com requests
> > url http://www/file.html
> > from proxy proxy.com
> >
> > proxy.com gets request, and looks up what?
> >
> > www.proxy.com (www in the local context, potentialy)
>
> Yes, or just respond with an error (always an option).
*MUST* be an error.
(and this is where the 1.1 spec should have something to say)
> >The 1.1 spec should require complete names,
>
> No. The 1.1 spec should not require that a client never do something
> which does work under some circumstances, just because it doesn't work
> in all circumstances. If the client requests on an ambiguous URL,
> it will get an ambiguous response behavior, which is as it should be.
Incorrect - as noted, it already does.
> In any case, this is a question of how to interpret the DNS hostname
> within an "http" URL, and applies equally to any URL scheme that uses DNS.
This is completely true, however.
Joe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu http://www.isi.edu/~touch/
ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/
USC / Research Assistant Prof. http://www.isi.edu/lsam/