# Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

Reed Wade (wade@cs.utk.edu)
Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:28:32 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- In reply to: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Next in thread: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"

    Message-Id: <9502150228.AA11319@honk.cs.utk.edu>

    To: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)

    Subject: Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:52:06 MST."

                 <v02110107ab66fd39fecf@[165.227.40.19]>

    Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:28:32 -0500

    From: Reed Wade <wade@cs.utk.edu>

Of the 2 schemes I don't see any functional difference.

finger:<blah> is certainly more intuitive for most people.

finger://<blah>/<blah> is more descriptive from an engineering
point of view. It's more intuitive for me.

Anyway, I'm liking finger:<blah> best of all now.

I assume the request is required to contain at least one
@hostname. (Unlike rfc1288.)

There's one thing I'd like clarified--will the final @hostname
part (from which the connect-to host is derived) be stripped
before <blah> is sent to the remote host?

-reed

-----
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Dept of Computer Science
Netlib Development Group 'I was kidding,' says bomb suspect
wade@cs.utk.edu -- <URL:http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/ReedWade.html>

- Next message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- In reply to: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Next in thread: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"