# Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

Paul Hoffman (ietf-lists@proper.com)
Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:58:13 -0700

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

    Message-Id: <v02110114ab67fe878c0e@[165.227.40.18]>

    Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:58:13 -0700

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

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

    Subject: Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

>The important question is whether I loose any functionality. Imagine
>these 2 situations:
>
>1. I type at my command line "finger wade@honk.cs.utk.edu"; the
> finger command on my machine opens a tcp connection to the finger
> server at honk.cs.utk.edu and sends "wade".
>
>2. With finger:<wade@honk.cs.utk.edu> how can I send a "wade" to
> the finger server at honk?
>
> The finger server on honk may or may not treat the 2 requests
> ("wade", "wade@honk.cs.utk.edu") differently. We can't assume
> they would do one thing or the other.

Reed, these are clearly client implementation issues. Anyone writing a
URL-reading finger client would have to look at how she/he would want to
parse and send. I believe this is probably beyond what belongs in a URL
description; look at how little client stuff appeared in RFC 1738.

- Next message: Reed Wade: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Previous message: Reed Wade: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Next in thread: Reed Wade: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Reply: Reed Wade: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"