# host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)

Ed Levinson (elevinso@Accurate.COM)
Thu, 02 Nov 1995 11:19:22 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "CID: and MID: URL schemes"
- Next in thread: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Maybe reply: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Maybe reply: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"

    Message-Id: <9511021619.AA03957@Accurate.COM>

    To: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-822@list.cren.net

    Subject: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)

    Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 11:19:22 -0500

    From: Ed Levinson <elevinso@Accurate.COM>

In examining the syntax of id-spec in draft-levinson-cid-01 I
considered substituting host for the existing hostname. I.e.,
changing the present syntax from
id-spec := local-part "@" hostname
to
id-spec' := local-part "@" host
where (from rfc 1738)
host := hostname | hostnumbmer
and
hostnumber := digits "." digits "." digits "." digits

However, converting id-spec' into a message-ID (content-ID) becomes
problematical. Rfc 822 requires, I think, that a message-ID containing
a host's IP address (hostnumber) have the form "[" digits "." digits "."
digits "." digits"]"

Is this reading of rfc822 correct or should id-spec be
local-part@host.

Thanks.../Ed

- Next message: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "CID: and MID: URL schemes"
- Next in thread: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Maybe reply: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Maybe reply: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"