Re: Assigned paths

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Hallam-Baker: "confidentiality and the referer field"
• Previous message: Ross Patterson: "Assigned paths"
• In reply to: Ross Patterson: "Assigned paths"
• Next in thread: David W. Morris: "Re: Assigned paths"

>Given that RFC 2169 "A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN
>Resolution" and some caching recommendations from this working group
>have both cited specific path patterns, is it time to discuss something
>like "assigned paths", similar to assigned numbers?

The answer is that there are no special paths.  Both RFC 2169 and 2068
are wrong in that regard.

Using a contorted form of GET in order to do name resolution using
HTTP is a particularly bad idea.  All that is needed is a new method
(corresponding to the requested action) and send the full URI.
That's what proxied HTTP is all about.

.....Roy

• Next message: Hallam-Baker: "confidentiality and the referer field"
• Previous message: Ross Patterson: "Assigned paths"
• In reply to: Ross Patterson: "Assigned paths"
• Next in thread: David W. Morris: "Re: Assigned paths"