[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
"The syntax of URL is defined by 'RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax', amended by 'RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URLs'." A hierarchical URI is, according to this syntax, described by the following: [scheme:][//authority][path][?query][#fragment] Of specific interest here is the [//authority] portion, which, if "server-based" (the norm), is further broken down to be: [user-info@]host[:port] Notice that the "port" is part of the "authority", and not part of the "path". So, my two points here are: (a) authority can potentially hold "user-info", and I suppose we should at least comment on that; and (b) the "port" should be considered part of the "authority", not part of the "path". > The bit about distinguishing between IP address and DNS name > is uncertain. If anyone has a better idea, please let me know. I'm not certain that I fully understand the rules you have specified for matching the "host", but wanted to just ensure that the following issues are being considered: 1. Should a DNS hostname "match" the associated IP address? 2. What about hosts that have multiple IP addresses? Shouldn't these all be considered "equivalent", and furthermore, equivalent to the DNS name(s) of this host? 3. What about hostname aliases? That is, two hostnames that map to the same IP address? Seems like these should be considered equivalent, too? Maybe? I'm not sure. 4. What about the special 127.0.0.1 IP address? Ditto, the special "localhost" DNS name? My naive approach would be to attempt to "normalize" before applying the "match" by converting DNS hostnames into IP addresses, and then special casing 127.0.0.1 into a "real" IP address for the host in question. Then the match can be simply done based on the IP numbers. Anyway, like I said earlier, this is probably pretty naive. Still, anyone care to comment on this? - Gene Thurston - AmberPoint, Inc.